Yeah, I don’t think that’s going away anytime soon.  Our children really have to have fortitude beyond their years and we have to be supportive of them and vocal in opposing this “material” in public schools.  We need to get over our self-consciousness because many are just waiting for someone to make the first move.  School fundraisers for organizations doing embryonic stem cell research is another problem.  I think our children need to be trained to be much more bold, independent, and thick-skinned than we have been.

Most men will be even more wary of filing a sexual harassment lawsuit than women. What man wants to speak about how disgusted he is by sexual advances from a member of the same sex? And will he risk being charged with bigotry himself?

I spotted this in a comment on the Dec. 12 2009 entry on the blog Baldilocks:
“I know of a man who was fired from a job for being homophobic. His offense? Refusing a kiss on the lips from a superior male staff member.”

Ridiculous? Yes. Did it happen? I have no reason to think not. Now many laws forbid private businesses from upholding public morals and they actively encourage their subversion.

There are very good reasons certain behaviors were once so taboo. It’s going to get worse before it gets better.

Will You Be Forced To Participate In Homosexual Pride Celebration?

What celebrations?  The Pope’s coronation, or installation of the local parish priest.

You can always plead “gay panic” when you don’t want to be seen in public with homosexuals.  But in your church.  What’s will be your excuse there?

I predict that attitudes like this will be the stuff of shame for our kids, because they will recognize it for what it is. Bigotry is just as contrary to Jesus Christ as anything this article complains about.

Robert Barrimond has proven Jimmy’s point, if I understand him correctly. By labeling Jimmy and anyone, really, who does not accept homosexuality as a normative, acceptable behavior is a “bigot.” There is no room for debate or honest discussion about the topic. We must accept, or be labelled “bigot.” As has already happened in Canada, this won’t stop with internet postings. There will soon be legal ramifications for opposing the homosexual agenda. Parents will be forced to allow schools to teach their kids that homosexuality is ok. People who express opposition will be sued, fined, and generally made to shut up.

In the court’s words “certain parade spectators wore sexually suggestive clothing”.  That can be said of virtually every Fourth of July parade across America, as well as the crowds at the mall, and even the communion lines at church.  And “posing and gyrating his hips, grabbing his genitalia” describes a Michael Jackson concert or some hooligans walking down mainstreet.  And “kind of sexually giving us gestures, licking their lips, saying things” and “men wearing G-strings that exposed their buttocks and women wearing pasties” describes legal public behavior that is less and less unusual these days.  Did I mention broadcast TV?  In the court’s words, “The same analysis would apply to any type of public event”.  Thus no firefighters or anyone at all should ever be required to appear in ANY public parade, not just at pride parades.  And perhaps street cleaners, garbage men, police and security guards at public events, and school children and teachers, and mall employees, etc can sue next.

so, its ok for gay fire fighters or gay cops to refuse to conduct outreach at churches. at all these places are by definition hoatile environments. public employees are charged with public outreach to all not just those citizens they like.

Some years ago, there was a big “gay rights” demonstration in DC.  The networks showed sanitized footage on their news shows, but CSPAN showed pretty much all there was to see.  My mother’s response was that if “these people want to be accepted, this is not the way to go about it.”

A case can been made that “Gay Pride Parades” constitute obscene displays, and they are often accompanied by acts that would normally get someone jailed as a sex offender.  But I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for someone to enforce the law…

With firemen posing half naked for calendars, this is no surprise.  Firemen cashing in, one way or another.  Another perk.

Gee, can I sue my private, non-church, employer the next time I am made to contribute and attend yet another “bridal shower?”

Then there are those dang City Hall meetings where some ask us to participate in their prayers before conducting government business.

Fire-fighters of any stripe, not wanting to participate or represent communities they serve, is fine with me, AFTER churches give up representing or having any say in who I marry outside their church, or pretending City Hall does not issue a marriage certificate and a government court does not issues decrees of divorce.

Bigots, you are not.  How do you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S?

Gay Pride Parades are something else, just a little less racy than Mardi Gras.  But there’s no associate between what Mardi Gras displays and any church.  Thank god that’s not shown on TV.

Leslie, so, as Christians, if we oppose gay marriage, we should just be quiet and let you and your fellow travelers overturn the most basic of societal institutions?

Also, I think there is a big difference between being made to participate in gay pride parade, which represents only one part of the “community,” where the firefighters were ogled and subject to lewd remarks (by the way, would that be tolerated if the firefighters were women and the gawkers men?) and being asked to pray or participate in a bridal shower. You can decline to pray, you can decline the bridal shower, but these guys were not given that option.

So, please dismount from your high horse.

According to the court, the firefighters were dismounted from their high horses and left with a pony: “it is inescapable that plaintiffs did not prevail on four of the five claims they originally pursued (and lost a tardy bid to add a sixth claim). Second, the damages awarded on their one successful claim were a fraction of the pretrial indications of what plaintiffs thought the case was worth”.

Leslie,

You obviously haven’t been to many Mardi Gras parades. To start with, firefighters aren’t required to attend them. Second, not all Mardi Gras parades are like the excesses occuring at some (SOME) New Orleans parades. Some, in fact, are highly family-friendly.

Last I checked, public employees are forbidden from requiring anyone to participate in public prayer.

And so forth. But it sure feels good to throw insults, doesn’t it?

Leslie, Paul, Peggy, and Robert,

What if your employers forced you to do something you didn’t believe in?

What if you (who all sound non-christian,) were forced to walk in the March for Life in DC?  Would you have a problem with that?

And don’t forget, no one would be shouting lewd remarks as you walked by!

The San Diego Fire Dept. is huge.  Why in the world didn’t they ask for volunteers?  I’m sure there must be some gay sympathizers in the Dept.  It sounds similar to the stripping of the Conscious Clause in Obamacare.  The general attitude seems to be “don’t agree?  Too bad, we have the legal backing to force you to participate in what you object to on moral grounds.”

Once they’ve beaten us Christians down a bit, they’ll start making the Jewish people eat pork!

The only thing I can think of is in these times is to totaly depend on and cry out to God. And wait for Him.

As far as the courts go, don’t look for help there. But like this sundays homily, persist in the request for justice. they are the black robe tyrants. But we do have power over them. please look into the fully informed jury association. www.fija.org
as a jury we can trash any garbage that gets taken to court. the power is in jury nulification and it has been the bull work legeal defense against political corruption as long as we can get a trial. the problem is we dont use this power. courts don’t instruct the jury in its full power. part of the coruption. the gay thing is just funny. well, with the exception of all the pain and damage it does. seriously, men parading around in proclaiming the right to sodimize each other. what a joke.

It’s time that the majority took back their power and strength from the minority.

At the end of the Day, while it is true that the Civil Rights movement served to affirm the equality of Race as provided for in our Constitution, to claim that all sexual acts and sexual relationships are equal is not only absurd, it is a lie from the start. Let us agree to refer to all persons not as heterosexual, homosexual…, which is demeaning because it objectifies the Human Person, but rather according to our inherent, complementary nature that has been endowed to us from God, as men and women, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, bothers and sisters…and let us then refuse to condone any sexual act that does not Respect the Dignity of the Human Person, made in the Image of God.

Nancy is right. I will pray for that.

Why are my fellow Catholics so afraid and reactionary?

One thing- I’d get the hell out of dodge. I couldn’t raise my kids in that atmosphere and for their immediate safety- we’d leave that city.

When the day comes, that everyone in our nation is required to march in pro life marches, then, I will say it will happen.We know that the tolerant left would never agree to march for Life. There is little gray left in any area of our society. The gap between good and evil grows ever wider. Like the parting of the Red Sea in the time of the ancient Israelites, people need to choose sides before Evil engulfs them. There is no longer going to be a tolerant middle ground filled with fence sitters. One will either need to align themselves with a pus filled cancerous society bloated with evil intent, or choose the Culture of Life and the narrow way of Jesus. As for me and my house, we choose to serve the Lord!

I think it is totally outrageous that we and are descendants have been brought to this point by the homosexual community.In my time I have seen homosexuals come from the hanging out at the bus station bathrooms and other similar venues and being totally illegal to right in our face and shoving it right down our throats.No pun intended.What will it take to restore morality back into our communities and our public places.I am afraid there is no solution but a moral revolution.

Let’s cut to the quick here. These men, who risk their lives protecting the lives and property of others regardless of race, religion, or orientation, were compelled to engage in an act of speech which was against their personal consciences.

As a society we recognize that military people with C.O. status do not have to actively fight. In a pluralistic society with the draft, this only seems like common sense.

We don’t have civic institutions requiring employees to participate happily in Eucharistic or Marian processions. That would be an act of speech against one’s conscience if they were not Catholic.

Another facet is the sexually-charged atmosphere. I think as a society we aren’t perfect but we are working hard (at least at the companies where I have worked) to achieve equality and safety for women. This requires an environment where women (and men!) are not subjected to sexual language or other harassment. How were these men not subjected to such an environment in this case? If all sexual orientations are equal, then they are equally dangerous in a work environment. These men deserve the same protections that women deserve and of which are all-too-frequently deprived, and I’m happy that some justice and sanity are prevailing here.

@SteveE &  @Nancy D

You are both very eloquent.  Keep it up!

I am tired of this reactionary response.  This is not the expression of the faith I love.

What if you (who all sound non-christian,) were forced to walk in the March for Life in DC?  Would you have a problem with that?

And don’t forget, no one would be shouting lewd remarks as you walked by!

well, except for the pro-abortion supporters.

Reactionary is exactly what we’re supposed to be—not lukewarm milquetoast Catholics.  Ptooey!  We’re not called the Church Militant because we sit on our hands while the meaning of marriage is weakened to mean whatever you want it to mean, children are intentionally denied a mother or father by being placed into gay homes, and physically and spiritually harmful sexual perversions are celebrated and treated as a “lifestyle choice”. 

It is a cold, hard heart that celebrates or encourages such activity by our silence.  Milquetoast Catholics do grave damage in the name of so-called tolerance, by their complicity with evil.

You are still reactionary without any wisdom and that is inflammatory and dangerous.

@ c matt

What if you (who all sound non-christian,) were forced to walk in the March for Life in DC?  Would you have a problem with that?

And don’t forget, no one would be shouting lewd remarks as you walked by!  Except for the pro-abortion supporters

Are you really saying that liberals would happily participate in the March for Life if told by their employer that they had to?  Please!  As
One of the Sheep said “We know that the ‘tolerant’ left would never agree to March for Life.”

And, as far as the pro-aborts, yes, they were there this year.  All 4 or 5 of them.  Compared to the 300,000 + Pro-Lifers, you just really couldn’t hear what they were saying, with all the multitudes singing and chanting “hey hey, ho ho, Roe V Wade has got to go!”

From his third sentence on, the comment by SHEEP OF THE DAY tops all others.

Good trumps the argument. G’d is good and so His revelation say these, v. Balluseck and his followers (http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/table34chart.pdf) who argue that a human is sexual from birth and has to be set free.

Both argue about the true Natural Law.

Did anyone see a comprehensive review and conclusion about this?

@ c matt ~ just re-read your post.  You were actually AGREEING with me, weren’t you?  Sorry about that!  (Yeah, that’s embarasing! :-))

Mia,  I am once again disappointed by a fellow Catholic who reacts and judges me as doing nothing without an inkling of knowing who I am.

It is impossible that we would be forced to participate in these parades.  I find it a little misleading to say that companies have pro-homosexual policies.  Any of the companies I’ve known of are concerned with everyone being treated equal, if nothing else, to avoid law suits.  I doubt they will start holding dances for gays etc.  This whole article is a bit over the top.

It was very wrong if in fact these men were “forced” to work the parade if they had issues with gay people.  It should be an opt-out policy for sure, and as one commenter mentioned, there must certainly been firemen on the force that are not homo-phobic.

As far as private companies, they should have the right to make all of their employees feel free of prejudice at work.  So if they need to make sensitivity training mandatory in order for those not to discriminate against homosexuals, that is their right as a company.  Don’t like that?  Find another job. 

What I personally have a problem with is the idea of “religious freedom” if that means discrimination.  I certainly don’t want someone bombarding with me with anything religious at work, and would understand the other side of the coin, that you wouldn’t want to be “harassed” or forced into something that involves homosexuality if it makes you uncomfortable.  But if that means not tolerating the gay person in your office having their partner’s picture on their desk, or bringing said partner to a company function… that’s your problem.  Not the gay person.

There are reasonable solutions to all of this. 

I personally think that these fireman are over-reacting.  These are men that fight fire and have, most likely, seen some terrible terrible sights.  If seeing two men or women together, or even a bit of cat-calling form the same sex bothers you that much… I think you need some thicker skin.  There is stuff on this earth that isn’t to all of our likings… take the little stuff with a grain of salt and get over it.

Nancy, in regard to your recommendation (“Let us agree to refer to all persons not as heterosexual, homosexual”), let us know when the bishops, the CDF, Vatican, Catechism (e.g. “Homosexual persons are called to chastity”), etc. stop referring to homosexual persons.  Until then, referring to persons as homosexual (or heterosexual) is part of Church teaching, just as it’s a part of Church teaching to refer to human nature as fallen (“the new life received in Christian initiation has not abolished the frailty and weakness of human nature”) and to people as sinners (“All members of the Church, including her ministers, must acknowledge that they are sinners”).

To Mia:  You must never have read the Emperors New Clothes.  It’s a fairy tale.  It would help you understand what it wrong.  God loves everyone.  He does not love all our actions.  He calls us all to holiness.  St. Paul thought celibacy was the holiest calling.  By nature men and women compliment each other.  Same sex couples do not.  It is “objectively disordered” .  You can see that things are not complimentary as they are intended to be.  It destroys the natural safety net we were given as well.  When morals decay to a certain point, common sense is destroyed.  Next incest will be ok or rape of an infant.  Where does it stop.  What is happening is a war between the flesh and the spirit. Jesus wants you to choose the spirit.  God bless.

“Posted by Robert LeVee on Monday, Oct 18, 2010 11:30 AM (EST):

I think it is totally outrageous that we and are descendants have been brought to this point by the homosexual community”

Robert, you do realize that the homosexual community includes a large number of Catholic priests, do you not?

Don’t think for a second that you are not under a homosexual agenda yourself - the Catholic Church’s self-loathing homosexual agenda.

The sooner people realize that, the more we’ll all get along.

Pam, whether it’s “same sex couples” or “opposite sex couples” or “unmarried couples”, they all include celibate couples and non-celibate couples, and couples which “complimented” one another and couples which did not.  Even if you mean “complement” rather than “compliment”, all couples and all people complement one another in a multitude of respects.  Peter and Paul were a same sex couple.  Do you think they didn’t “compliment” one another?  And then there’s Peter, Paul and Mary.  They were a harmonious threesome.  Meanwhile, Jesus and Mary are an opposite sex couple, and the four firemen are a same sex foursome, and rather than “destroy the natural safety net”, they help keep you safe.

Cyrus,

These men were not forced to “work” the Parade, they were forced to PARTICIPATE in the parade.

You stated <i>As far as private companies, they should have the right to make all of their employees feel free of prejudice at work.  So if they need to make sensitivity training mandatory in order for those not to discriminate against homosexuals, that is their right as a company. <i>

That really has nothing to do with the issue being discussed.  No one here is saying gay people should be harassed at work. I also don’t think women should be sexually harassed by men at work, AND I don’t think the City had the right to force these Firemen to participate in the parade (not just work AT it, but participate in it,) and be sexually harassed while they marched in the parade.

The city did not force the firemen to be sexually harassed any more than the city forced the fireman to interpret things as they did.  Other firemen were in the parade too and they did not claim to be sexually harassed, but four firemen CHOSE to claim that they were.

To Marty,

Well if they were forced to participate or work in the parade that’s wrong, and their supervisors should be properly reprimanded.  Again, I am sure there were other fireman that wouldn’t have a problem with it.  Harassment is a tricky issue, and of course nobody should be made to feel uncomfortable. 

Now personally, with my experience of pride parades, any sort of cat-calling, sexual innuendo, and such is indeed harmless.  I understand that many of you readers would disagree given what you have been told and taught, but pride parades are celebrations of personal pride and sexual expression.  I cannot of course speak for every homosexual as there are good and bad people in any given group but I would gander that the “harassment” that these men endured was indeed truly harmless.  Now obviously they did not think so, and that is what it is.  If they weren’t comfortable enough with themselves and their sexuality, they shouldn’t have been there.  And therefore shouldn’t have been forced.

My comment regarding private businesses was in response to the authors claim that “Private companies also often have pro-homosexual policies.”  The only example I can think of a “pro-homosexual policy” are anti-discrimination.  It seems silly to think that a company would force an employee to either attend a pride parade, a gar bar/establishment, or the like. 

That would not be right or just, as it would absolutely wrong for a private company to force it’s employees to go to a church or participate in any type of prayer.

Mia and Tricia you bring to mind the saying about pearls before swine.  If you do not sincerely wish to love your brothers and sisters by helping them to set their sights on high but would rather drag them to the flesh, that is your choice.  I won’t be joining you.  No nation is older and wiser that would condone incest or abuse infants. They do not know Jesus Christ.  There is earthly wisdom and spiritual wisdom and nations (if they exist) that do what you say they do are not following spiritual wisdom.  Christ never taught tolerance.  He only taught true love.  Dying to ones disordered passions and loving God back for all the love he has given you by making sacrifices like abstaining from homosexual relations if you were so inclined.

Mia, could you please name specifically some of those wisest nations that condone incest and child brides?

Tom, the correct teaching of The Catholic Church is that homosexuality refers to a disordered inclination.

Pam, the firemen told the court that they “had no objection to the gay lifestyle” and that their sexual harassment claim “was not based on their exposure to the gay community during the parade, but rather, as Ghiotto explained, they ‘didn’t want to be put on a pedestal in . . . public view and be ridiculed’” as the center of sexual attention in the parade.  Thus, the court ruled that the same situation would apply if, for example, the firemen had been on parade before a crowd of raving heterosexual women, or before a crowd of celibate nuns chastising them about sexual immorality.

Nancy, the Catechism states verbatim: “Homosexual persons are called to chastity”.  And as to “a disordered inclination”, mankind at large suffers from a disordered inclination: “an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence.”  That includes you, whether you’re heterosexual or homosexual or whatever.

Tom not sure why you directed that comment to me.  Doesn’t respond to anything I said.

Cyrus, sounds like we are pretty much on the same page.  Just a few comments. 
I would gander that the “harassment” that these men endured was indeed truly harmless.  According to a Boston paper the men complained that ” they were subjected to catcalls and the sight of semi-nude men carrying out “simulated sex acts,” and say that what they went through constitutes sexual harassment.”  Put the shoe on the other foot. If female employee’s were subject to that type of behavior from men while on the job, they would (rightfully) be legally protected.  Why should the men have to put up with it?
If they weren’t comfortable enough with themselves and their sexuality, they shouldn’t have been there.  If a woman in the workforce is harassed, it’s an indication that she is uncomfortable with herself and her sexuality?  HUH?  That’s quite a double standard there!
And therefore shouldn’t have been forced.
Exactly!

Pam, as my post states, my response was directed to Nancy.

Marty, “yourself” is the “it” in your question, “Why should you have to put up with it?”  If you’re not comfortable with yourself, you have a problem putting up with yourself.  You can point the finger at catcalls or at someone else but doing so does not change the fact that you have a problem putting up with yourself, and that doesn’t change whether you’re a man or a woman.

Let ‘er rip, Mia. Enquiring minds want to know….

Unless you made it up, then don’t bother.

Thalia,

Here is a definition of sexual harassment “Offensive conduct which is directed at a worker due to the worker’s gender.”

Sexual harassment is ILLEGAL!  And you are trying to tell me that a worker should have to put up with offensive conduct, because otherwise they are admitting that they are not comfortable with THEMSELVES?

No.  They are not comfortable with the offensive conduct they are having to deal with while trying to perform their job in a professional manner.

Do you think that bullying behavior is OK to?  Is it just that the “victim is not comfortable with themself?”

No lovingkindness in this article whatsoever.  This kind of derisiveness is not God’s work, and absolutely nothing can convince me different.

no one HAS to participate in anything..if you dont like your church ..leave..if you dont like what your job requires ...leave…if you dont think homos should marry..then dont marry one…if you dont like homos then dont be friends with any…homos dont care ...we are not requiring your church to marry us..churches should be able to do want they want with NO govt interference….honestly we dont WANT your church..but you go ahead and do want you want ...we dont care if you exclude us we dont want you anyway…

Hey there gimmeabreak,

I believe you are misguided.I do not believe in the fallacy that many in the Priesthood itself are homosexuals.If they are they need to leave the Church.By even being so unchaste they make a mockery of the vows they have taken,the Church of our Lord,and it’s believers.That is my solution.To show tolerance and love toward this practice beside being an abomination would also excepting evil and Satans influence into our lives.Jesus did not go over and love the homosexuals which would have wanted a relationship with Him.What you suggest is heresy.

It is the Roman Catholic Church that is the cesspool. Where was the pope when his priests were raping young boys and girls? The ordination of women is a “grave sin??” Way to go, writing off 50% of the human race as being incapable of being an icon of Jesus. The majority of the world is overpopulated, polluted, and starving; AIDS is running rampant in Africa. The pope’s response? “Have more babies, and don’t you DARE use condoms, even if your husband or wife is HIV-positive and you are not.”

If that’s compassionate, moral Christianity, I’m a virgin with a 28’’ waist ... and I assure you I’m NOT, on BOTH counts.

I walked away from the Church after a half-century of faithful service. I couldn’t sit through ONE more homophobic diatribe by a mentally-ill closet queen.

Marty, if you’re not comfortable with yourself and you choose to not admit it, that’s your choice.  I’m not telling you that you “should have to” do that!  Likewise, I’m not telling you that you should point your finger at anyone else.  But again, if you choose to do it, that’s your choice.

Legal or illegal, in every alleged instance of harassment, there is a subjective determination.  Without that subjective determination, there is no “harassment”.  Thus it’s up to you and your interpretation whether you’re harassed or not.  The same applies to “bullying”.  If you choose to view yourself as “bullied” or “harassed”, that’s your choice, and Dr. Phil might ask you, “How’s that working for you?” or “You’re getting something from it, or else you wouldn’t do it.”

But perhaps you’re unable to control your interpretations.  If you can’t control your interpretation of events, perhaps the people you blame also suffer from the same lack of control that you have.  Why should I blame someone who lacks control?

On the other hand, if you are able to control your interpretations, a quote alleged to St. Francis of Assisi comes to mind: “No one is to be called an enemy, all are your benefactors, and no one does you harm. You have no enemy except yourselves.”

Tom,the Catechism of The Catholic Church was revised clarifying the fact that homosexuality does not refer to a person but to a disordered inclination.

The Catholic Church does say that homosexual acts are a distorted inclination.  How can sodomy not be disorted.  We are created female and male.  This is the ordered way sex was created for. Those who are single and heterosexual are called to celibacy and if you are homosexual you are called to celibacy.  This may sound trite, but sex is a sacred act when you are married.  There are so many ways to give of yourself in service to God and the Church that with God’s grace one can live a Holy life. No one should be harrassed for anything.  We are all loved by God and called to Holiness in whatever vocation we are in. Staying close to the Eucharist and all the Sacraments will increase our Faith and we can surely do God’s will each day. What better way to grow in love for ourself and our neighbor. Whatever happeded to Values?  Every act of self control leads to self respect.

I just submitted my statement and this is the second time I have had this happen.  Saying I did not put the word in as it was. I cheched the word each time before I submitted it and I did put it in correctly.

Nancy, it is the current revised Catechism of the Catholic Church which states: “Homosexual persons are called to chastity.” (CCC#2359)  And in regard to what “homosexuality” refers, again, direct from the current revised Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.” (CCC#2357)

Thus, the (1) term “homosexual persons” is in fact used in Church teaching, and can refer to the “men or… women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”, i.e. to persons who are predominantly or exclusively inclined to same-sex sexual relations, and (2) the term “homosexuality” expressly refers to the same-sex (sexual) relations (e.g. genital sexual acts) between such persons and NOT simply to a disordered inclination.

Hope that helps.  If you need further assistance, you can look for yourself…  http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

No person should ever be forced to do something against their will.
I do not live in America where freedoms are protected, so these things may not apply, but I remember being forced to attend year after year of daily church services at school and in the army.

Sorry, but all sense of proportion is lost here by you, Jimmy.  As a gay man and a Christian, I actually sympathize with these firefighters and feel they should not be forced to do something against their beliefs.  However, I also know that I have had to participate in religious services, celebrations of heterosexuality, glorifications of war and other events as a child growing up.  The violence done to a young person by some priest who proclaims condemnation of homosexuals to eternal damnation is a bit worse than some firefighter being offended.  How many straight kids are killing themselves these days over anti-straight bullying and harassment?

@ Johnn “No one HAS to do anything.”
You seem to have missed the whole point of this article. The firemen do not WANT to be in a gay parade, and were forced to!
@ Thalia
You continue to follow Dr. Phil’s psych-babble, and I’ll follow the Catechism.  I could slam you with a few insult right now, and then insist that you just “interpreted” what I said as an insult.  Instead, I’ll just continue to see the truth.  If I insult you, it’s wrong of ME!  (Not the person I insult.)
@ Raymond H Burgoon-Clark
Where to even begin?  The Pope has never raped anyone.  Diocesean Priests don’t chat with the Pope, and tell him what they are up to.  In HIV ravaged countries, condom use has caused the spread of the disease to skyrocket, and abstinance programs have seen the disease dramatically decline (do a little research!)  If you knew a Priest that was a “closet queen,” I am truley sorry.  I’m 46 years old, craddle Catholic, and have never known anything but wonderful, faithful Priests.  I do know that there are bad priests out there, but to lump the good with the bad is a huge disservice to our good Priests.

I wanted to hear it from you, Mia. 

Are you saying we should imitate these countries or we should give them a pass for some reason?

Jimmy, don’t forget Jennifer Keeton, a student threatened with expulsion for failing to “fix” her beliefs on this issue by, for example, attending a “gay pride” parade in Georgia.
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/News/PRDetail/4140

Oh, and Julia Ward, a graduate social work student expelled for not agreeing to a “remediation” program.
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/News/PRDetail/141

Marty, if you follow the Catechism, it instructs: “Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it.”  And that’s what I do.  It may well be that *IF* you insult me that would be wrong, but you have no authority to simply skip over that “if”.  You might “insist” or fancy that you’ve insulted me, that you somehow removed or glided around that “if”, but no matter what you fancy, that “if” remains firmly there and I’m not removing it as it remains that I’m not insulted.  And just supposing that IF I were to be insulted, why should I blame you?  You cannot insult me without my involvement, without me fancying the “if” removed.  And so I would only need correct myself to see the truth of my own involvement and presto change-o… I’m not insulted by you, no matter how you might choose to gyrate about and regardless of the wind that may flow from your lips.

Mia, when you have something substantive to post, I will dialogue with you. For starters finish a line of thought on an idea you brought up, and please have it make sense.

Liseux, we are called to “imitate” the Father, and God permits “these countries” and whoever to do as they do because he respects the freedom of his creatures, and that is a “pass” of a kind.  Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

The last sentence of your post kind of contradicts the first two sentences, Sam.

I can’t give the practices a pass, as I am called to be perfect as is the Lord.

God respecting their freedom won’t always equal a pass in the end, as they will be held accountable for what they knew and did or didn’t know and did. God is a great sorter out of these things!

(And I can see we in the Church sharing in their culpability if we do not get to them the Good News.)

Thalia,

I DO follow the Catechism, I’m sure if you dig a little deeper, you will see that the Catechism teaches that people are actually RESPONSABLE for their actions.

You just keep watching Dr. Phil.  And, if someone should punch you in the stomach, just remember, “no matter how you might choose to gyrate about and regardless of the wind that may flow from your lips”, it only hurts if “you are uncomfortable with yourself!”  The person who did the punching has NOTHING to answer for.

Liseux, the Church teaches that God, perfect as he is, permits evil—and permits you to think it’s a contradiction.  But that too shall pass.  Is there anything that is not given a pass?  The Church teaches: “His Paschal mystery is a real event that occurred in our history, but it is unique: all other historical events happen once, and then they PASS away, swallowed up in the past.”

Marty, you say, “people are actually responsible for their actions”, and if I interpret events as “someone punching me in the stomach”, that would be my action.  I don’t blame someone else for my action.

“And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.”

Thalia, if someone does punch you in the stomach, I might not blame them either.

Trey said, “Robert Barrimond has proven Jimmy’s point, if I understand him correctly. By labeling Jimmy and anyone, really, who does not accept homosexuality as a normative, acceptable behavior is a ‘bigot.’”

I said that attitudes such as the above, i.e. the acceptability of inciting fear and hatred while denigrating human beings, is shameful and contrary to Christ.  It bears no resemblance to doing to the “least of these” or seeing the face of Christ in all.  And the Church very wisely does not condone this behavior.

Hate is hate whether it be under the veneer of righteousness or not.  And this ugliness is not new:

http://hnn.us/articles/4708.html

Marty, if, if, if—the launching pad of fantasy.

Sam, final impenetence is not given a pass. Some people will love their sinful lifestyles more than the Truth. Some will love God more than their sins and choose Him.

Neither you nor I can judge someone’s eternal destination.

God’s truth is given to us in scripture and in Apostolic tradition.  Paul preached the Good News. We can’t preach the Absolute Pass, which I hope you and Mia are not doing.

Thalia, indeed!

Liseux, although you say “final impenitence is not given a pass”, you do not say God forces you to choose him and thus he permits you to choose final impenitence if that is your choice.

Thalia,  Thank you for your excellent insights into the cause of our suffering.  I am in total agreement with you.  It is sad to see that others cannot or will not understand what you have written.

I can only speak for one transgender person (me) but I don’t give a flying fart what you are.  Unless you’re deeply closeted…in which case, see a psychiatrist.

Emily

I personally live in California and have talked to people who support the gay marriage lobby.  And I’ve come to the following conclusion after my discussions with them: It’s impossible to reason with them, no matter how charitable you try to be in the dialogue.  And I’m absolutely tired of my fellow Catholics where I live saying that we should have a dialogue with them.  It’s simply impossible to reason with unreasonable people.  And finally, I think that anyone who disagrees with Church teaching and (especially) wants to change what She teaches should do one thing: leave the Church.  Yes, you read that correctly.  There’s no one forcing anyone in the Church to stay in the Church if one has major disagreements over Church teaching.  And there are plenty of Protestant Christian denominations who have no problem with homosexual behaviors.  A big problem problem with leaving, of course, is that you won’t have assurance of salvation outside the the Catholic Church.

Concerning these poor firefighters, I think they should just move out of the state and be firefighters elsewhere where they will be truly respected and honored.  Until Jesus Himself comes back in his Second Coming, this problem with forced acceptance of the gay agenda is going to get worse no matter what any of us does.  I don’t base this on pessimism, but from the human tendency to reject true morality over time.

I agree Sam that we choose to reject God in that final impenetance and that we choose to reject God.

What God does not do in that final rejection is give an an absolute pass.

Whatever floats your boat, Mia. When you’re ready to have a coherent conversation, I am for you.

Tom, since we all know that our complementary nature as male and female is endowed to us from God for it is God Who stated, “Let Us Make Man In Our Image” and thus He created us male and female…(see Holy Bible, Genesis) and that the sexual objectification of any Human Person is in direct conflict with God’s Commandment regarding the sin of lust and adultery, I would suggest a revision to CCC#2359 so that the wording is consistent with Catholic teaching that God created us male and female (not heterosexual, homosexual, GLBT….) and oriented us to His Word. I would suggest that “homosexual person” be replaced with men and women with a homosexual inclination for clarification.

Nancy, the existing CCC#2359 is Catholic teaching, and thus already “consistent with Catholic teaching”.  If you believe CCC#2359 is saying that God made some people homosexual and others heterosexual, that’s your personal opinion.  If your personal opinion is not consistent with Catholic teaching, why do you persist with your personal opinion?

Here are some other statements that might help you in your journey to understand Catholic teaching and the English language: Married persons are called to chastity.  Unmarried persons are called to chastity.  Bald persons are called to chastity.  Bleached blonde persons are called to chastity.  Dyslexic persons are called to chastity.  Alcoholic persons are called to chastity.  Opinionated persons are called to chastity.  Unchaste persons are called to chastity.  Left-handed persons are called to chastity.  Right-handed persons are called to chastity.  Divorced persons are called to chastity.  Homosexual persons are called to chastity.  Heterosexual persons are called to chastity.  Impetuous persons are called to chastity.  Tea Party persons are called to chastity.  Lonely persons are called to chastity.  Unhappy persons are called to chastity.  Obnoxious persons are called to chastity.  Quiet persons are called to chastity.  Non-English speaking persons are called to chastity.  All the baptized are called to chastity.

People should cultivate chastity in the way that is suited to their state of life.  The Christian has “put on Christ,” the model for all chastity.

And as to what you claim “we all know”, as far as I know, you’re still learning along with everyone else.  In that learning, we are not only told that “God made them male AND female” (and there are people who might consider themselves androgynous or bisexual or intersexed who are pleased with that) but we are also told that “there is not male and female for you are all one in Christ Jesus”, the model for all chastity (Gal 3:28), and that “some are eunuchs because they were born that way” (Mat 19:12), and that “God willed the diversity of his creatures” and “God himself created the visible world in ALL its richness, diversity and order.”

And yet, to repeat for you… there is NOT male and female, for you all one in Christ Jesus, the model for all chastity.  It is through chastity that we are gathered together and led back to the unity from which we were fragmented into multiplicity.

You are invited to accept the teachings of “a Church which speaks all tongues, understands and accepts all tongues in her love, and so supersedes the divisiveness of Babel” where “the LORD confused the speech of all the world”.

Liseux, whatever you do, God permits, even giving you a pass to final impenitence if that is your choice.

To be chaste means to be pure, beginning with purity of heart.  Who can tell what is in another person’s heart?

“To the pure, all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted.” (Titus 1:15)

“Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?”  (Matthew 7:3)

“The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is sound, your whole body will be full of light.”  (Matthew 6:22)

“Rejoice, O young man, while you are young and let your heart be glad in the days of your youth. Follow the ways of your heart, the vision of your eyes; Yet understand that as regards all this God will bring you to judgment.”  (Ecclesiastes 11:9)

“Always be gay.  Pray constantly.  In all circumstances [including Pride parades and Catholic blogs] give thanks, for this is the will of God for you in Christ Jesus.” (1 Thes 5:16-18)

God permits many things that are contrary to His will because He gave us free will.  That does not mean He condones them.  He allows the weeds to grow with the wheat but He knows an enemy planted the weeds in His field.  We know an enemy when we see one.  We don’t know when or if God will bestow His grace on our enemy and convert them, but we pray that He will.  Sin exists.  The greatest sin of the twentieth century is the loss of the sense of sin according to Pope Paul VI.  You are deluding yourself if you believe that immoral actions and harrassment are only troubling if we let ourselves be troubled.  It is the Holy Spirit within us that is rebelling.  It is our God given conscience.

Gay pride: “I will rather boast most gaily of my weaknesses, in order that the power of Christ may dwell with me.” (2 Corinthians 12:9)

Gay pride: “Be gay, you barren one who bore no children; break forth and shout, you who were not in labor; for more numerous are the children of the deserted one than of her who has a husband.” (Galatians 4:27)

Gay lifestyle: “I commend the enjoyment of life, because nothing is better for a man under the sun than to eat and drink and be gay” (Ecclesiastes 8:15)

Gay blessings: “Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you… Rejoice and be gay, for your reward will be great in heaven.” (Matthew 5:11-12)

Gay scandal: “When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, ‘Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.’ So he came down at once and welcomed him in a gay manner. All the people saw this and began to mutter, ‘He has gone to be the guest of a ‘sinner.’’ But Zacchaeus stood up and… Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham…’” (Luke 19:5-9)

Gay chorus: “An evil man is snared by his own sin, but a righteous one can sing and be gay” (Proverbs 29:6)

If you are suggesting that the word gay ment homosexual in the bible then your understanding of the word, and the bible, is perverted. if you take the trouble to replace the word gay with sodomize or sodomy. If you don’t know what sodomy is, look it up. that is the perverted behavior that homosexuals engage in and want people to pat them on the back for in public. They want to prance around the street and make sure everyone knows that they like to “stick it” in there guy “friends” pooper and have everyone clap and cheer because they are queer and like to stick it in the rear. as if it was some feat or accomplishment. please.

Sam says, “Liseux, whatever you do, God permits, even giving you a pass to final impenitence if that is your choice.”

Sam, what’s the pass that God gives on final impenetence? You got any scripture to back up God letting anything unclean into heaven?

M & M is perverting language to fit a perverted perception. Period.

Some people substitute the word “gay” for homosexual because homosexual is too clinical and truthful.

Homosexual is an apt adjective and doesn’t need dumbing down.

M&M are you writing your own translation of the Bible? Your use of “gay” doesn’t appear in mine.  What version are you quoting?  God LOVES you but not homosexual acts.  Remember Sodom and Gemorrha? They were really gay there.  His grace can overcome all sin.

Liseux, who is talking about “letting anything unclean into heaven”?  Do you think you’re heaven bound if you choose final impenitence?  Does the condemnation “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!” sound like passage into heaven to you?

No doubt, there are those who would like to be defined or define others according to their disordered inclination so that it may appear that those of us who refuse to condone homosexual sexual acts or any sexual act that does not respect the Dignity of the human person are discriminating against a person, when we are, in fact, discriminating against demeaning sexual acts and demeaning sexual relationships. For this reason, CCC no. 2359 should be revised for clarification.

Liseux, if that’s your perception, well, that’s YOUR perception.  How “perverted” is your perception?  To the pure, all things are pure.

Pam, it’s from the “pure” version.  If you help someone of the same sex, that too is a “homosexual act”.  And Sodom and Gomorrah “really gay there”?  Well, guess what… “There is a river whose streams make gay the city of God”! (Psalms 46:4)

Nancy, currently, the votes have it that CCC#2359 remain as it is written.  The next highest number of votes, given that CCC#2348 already says “All the baptized are called to chastity” and that CCC#2394 already says “Every baptized person is called to lead a chaste life”, is that CCC#2359 should simply be removed.  A somewhat lesser number of votes, but still greater than the number of votes for what you suggested, is that CCC#2359 be changed to say either “God loves homosexual persons” or “Those who cannot read cannot read this.”

Sam, perhaps I misunderstood your viewpoint.

If you don’t think that people get “passes” for final impenetance, then I think we agree.

I’m glad that you mentioned the “Depart from me,” verse, as that sheds light on your point of view.

I am a faithful Catholic who ain’t her own pope. Looks like you’re not either.

Have a blessed day.

I agree with Pam that M & M’s translation is a bit odd. Gay doesn’t appear in my translation either.

It is a quite a novelty.

Why do some Christians frustrate themselves so much about hating and being paranoid over homosexuals and especially when there are so many other needs to worry over in our world, such as war and poverty?

Liseux, you keep talking about getting a “pass”, and if by that you mean “God willed that man should be left in the hand of his own counsel” and man is “created with free will and is master over his acts”, then yes, you get a “pass”.  It can also mean “to place into the hands or custody of”, as exemplified by the verse “his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured… This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart”.  What a treat!  It can also mean “to reject” and “to die”.  Which of those passes do you want?

Advocates of the post-Vatican II “euphemism treadmill” want to suppress these teachings…

Coming out: “Out of the gayness of his presence, bolts of lightning blazed forth” (2 Samuel 22:13)

Self-loathing: “As I made my journey and drew near to Damascus, about noon a gay light from heaven suddenly shone about me. And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, `Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’” (Acts 22:6-7)

Same sex: “My (same sex) companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the gay light had blinded me.” (Acts 22:11)

Polysexuality: “Pointing to his disciples, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.’” (Matthew 12:49-50)

Wisdom: “Wisdom makes a man’s face gay and changes its hard appearance” (Ecclesiastes 8:1)

Wisdom: “Those who are wise will shine like the gayness of the heavens” (Daniel 12:3)

Transfiguration: “While he was still speaking, a gay cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him!’” (Matthew 17:5)

Transfiguration: “As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as gay as a flash of lightning.” (Luke 9:29)

Convent: “Be gay with those who are gay; mourn with those who mourn.” (Romans 12:15)

Truth: “Love does not delight in evil but is gay with the truth.” (1 Corinthians 13:6)

Hard teaching: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you are not gay.”  (John 6:53)

As time goes by: “Be gay in the Lord always. I will say it again: Be gay!” (Philippians 4:4)

Chastity: “Homosexual persons are called to be gay.” (CCC#2359)

Yellow Brick Road: “Why do you ask me about what is gay? There is only One who is gay.  If you want to be gay, obey the commandments.” (Matthew 19:17)

M&M: It appears you have chosen to create your own Bible and your own God. So sorry we can’t have a more meaningful discussion.  By the comment about Sodom and Gemmorah, I was attempting to point out that sins of the flesh are highly offensive to God.  But you are right that it is wrong to lump all homosexuality into the flagrant sexual sin of that time and place.  My apologies.

Sam, you were the one who brought up the free pass, not I.

I am through going round and round that topic with you, as on your post before you actually made good sense by agreeing that nothing unclean can enter heaven.  Why beat a dead horse?

Are you a faithful Catholic, loyal to the pope. If you are, then we agree. If you are not then we differ.

Pam, key words in your post are “it appears”.  How things appear to you is subjective and is a light upon yourself.

“Stop judging by appearances” (John 7:24)

Liseux, if you will direct your attention to your “Posted by liseux on Tuesday, Oct 19, 2010 8:19 AM (EST)” post, you may see where it was YOU who brought up the “pass” when you wrote: “Are you saying we should imitate these countries or we should give them a PASS for some reason?”

And the only poster who has used the phrase “free pass” is again YOU, in your “Posted by liseux on Thursday, Oct 21, 2010 5:59 PM (EST)” post.  Do you think there’s not a price to pay in choosing “final impenitence”?  Can you afford that pass?

And on whether you or I are “a faithful Catholic, loyal to the pope”, who is to say?  Perhaps we both are, and/or perhaps we’re both not?

Sam, as I was referring to your phraseology and idea of giving an absolute pass.

If you can’t admit that you are a faithful Catholic, then obviously you are not, so yea, we disagree.  I also know that you like to string along a discussion, and your answers are all over the road. If you were driving, you’d be pulled over for your recklessness.

I actually have family to tend to and don’t have time to repeat my answers.

You know where I stand.

Liseux, I’m not interested in exalting my opinion as the standard of faithfulness.  Who is faithful?  “Let God be true though every man be false, as it is written, ‘That thou mayest be justified in thy words, and prevail when thou art judged.’” (Romans 3:4)

And, by the way, “absolute pass” is another of your terms, as is whatever “idea” you have about it.

Hello Sam,

I see no reason either for you to exalt your opinion as a standard of faithfulness.  Relativism shouldn’t be exalted as its only consistency is that it always contradicts itself.

I will exalt magisterial teaching as a standard of faith and morals. You can agree or disagree.

Have a good one.

Sorry M&M my mistake for putting in “it appears”.  You are not using a Catholic Bible or the King James Version in your quotes or any other Bible that is accepted as a scholarly and accurate translation.  In doing this you are in FACT creating your own God, not the one revealed and handed down through the teaching authority He appointed. You are doing this at great risk to your immortal soul.  Neither of these statements are judgments, nor was the one above.  Just facts.  There is a difference. Notice you had no comment on how egregious the sins of the flesh are to God.  You were made for greater things.  I am not judging by appearances.

The Standard: “Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 7:12)

The Standard: “I will judge you by your own words.” (Luke 19:22)

The Standard: “As you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.” (Matthew 7:2)

The Standard: “You are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment. For by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things.” (Romans 2:1)

The Standard: “Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?” (Luke 12:57)

The Standard: “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.” (CCC#1790)

The Standard: “Judge for yourselves what I am saying” (1 Corinthians 10:15)

Pam, if you think what I’ve posted doesn’t speak to the subject of “sins of the flesh” or that it doesn’t come from a “Catholic Bible”, that’s your interpretation.  You assign the meaning you want to the words.  It comes from you and is as “Catholic” as you are.  It’s your reflection.  As are your “facts”.

“First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside will also be clean.” (Matthew 23:26)

The Church “understands and accepts all tongues in her love, and so supersedes the divisiveness of Babel”.

M&M You’ve gone off the deep end.  There are criterion a Bible must meet to be a “Catholic” Bible.  I did not say “catholic” Bible. It is not open to interpretation.  Sorry if reality is so troublesome to you.  You are living the Emperor’s New Clothes and you are the tailor.

Pam, the Church speaks all tongues and understands and accepts all tongues in her love, and so supersedes the divisiveness of Babel.

You might try that on for criterion, if it’s not “troublesome” and “deep” for you.

M & M,

It’s not just Pam’s opinion, it is fact.

If you would like to protest, please give all your “gay” quotes with the Hebrew or Greek work meaning “gay” from the original translations.

Or, use Jerome’s Latin and find the “gay” insertion.

What you have is a man-made tradition and a distortion of scripture.

The Church accepts all tongues as in people of all languages.  Christ brought the salvation of God to Jews and Gentiles alike for those who believe and follow Him- TO whom He warned, “Take the narrow path. The road is wide that leads to destruction.” To follow Him, He told His disciples before the ascension, “Go teach REPENTANCE for the forgiveness of SIN. He is saying SIN exists. He is God. He knows. Sodomy, fornication and adultery are specifically listed in the Bible. Hopefully if we have ever committed any of these sins we have given heartfelt repentance and gotten back on the narrow path.  God bless.

Liseux, the citations have already been provided.  You and Pam can bark up a storm as you please.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM2mAxF4-2o

You’ve provided nothing from the original Greek, Hebrew, or the Latin.

I don’t do videos from people I’m not too sure of. If you have something to convey, write it.

Liseux, you can look up Greek. Hebrew and Latin translations yourself.  Or not.  Your choice.

The youtube site you post is dog videos. God bless you.

The onus to demonstrate the validity of the “gay” translation is on your back, not mine.

Have a good evening.

Liseux, the onus is imaginary.  I have no need of a demonstration of anything.  “The LORD is my shepherd; there is nothing I lack.” (Psalm 23:1)

Whatever you make of things is your doing, and if your doing is not valid, your doing is not valid.  If it concerns you, it concerns you.

M & M it’s incredible ironic that you make a claim on an interpretation of scripture and then can’t back it up. I do believe your interpretation is imaginary as well!

Burden of proof: “Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it.” (CCC#2478)

Gay parenting: “He seats them with princes, the princes of the people, gives the barren woman a home, the gay mother of children. Hallelujah!” (Psalm 113:9)

Gay parenting: “My son, if your heart is wise, then my heart too will be gay” (Proverbs 23:15)

Fashion: “As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as gay as a flash of lightning. A same-sex couple, Moses and Elijah, appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus of his exodus that he was going to accomplish in Jerusalem. Peter and his same-sex companions had been overcome by sleep, but becoming fully awake, they saw his glory and the same-sex couple standing with him.” (Luke 9:29-32)

Fashion advice: “No one tears a patch from a new garment and sews it on an old one!  If he does, he will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old.” (Luke 5:36)

I’m all for gay marriage and gay parenting if it means happy, not homosexual.

That’s where your “imaginary” wording comes in.

Whatever you mean it to mean is what you mean it to mean.

“Whatever you mean it to mean is what you mean it to mean.”

This sort of remark is typical of persons who live entirely within their own heads, who have in place tall and thick barriers against all external influences, and who cannot conceive that others might live in any other way . . . a way, for example, that entails reference to common experiences, shared meanings and realities.

The ultimate example of this psychological behavior would be that of one of the homeless guys in the Seinfeld episode, who, when asked by Newman and Kramer whether he were ready to pull a rickshaw, replied, “I’ll take the job! Potato salad!”

That poor fellow had no real choice in his psychological behavior; he was utterly, as the British say, “around the bend.”

Some people, though, who do (still) have a choice, nevertheless, insist that what goes on within their own heads is the only reality, and that what goes within others’ is their reality, thus divorcing themselves and others from the rest of humanity. This is the road to utter isolation, and ultimately to insanity. So long as these barriers remain in place, communication with others is meaningless, with a meaninglessness that typifies the utterances of the poor homeless fellow and of the commenter quoted above.

Many have spoken against theocracy. These sorts of comments would appear to demonstrate that the alternative to theocracy is utter meaninglessness. A false dichotomy, indeed.

Marion, it’s an example of relativism at its worst, and I didn’t bother to answer her.  Good post.

” . . .an example of relativism at its worst, and I didn’t bother to answer her.”

Yes, pretty much. What possible answer would there be?

Except maybe something along her own lines.  “Potato salad! Anaconda? Your turn, Ziggy Stardust!”

Sheesh!

Forced to participate in anti-gay activities?

Sorry, I plan to be out sick that day.  Maybe I’ll declare the day as my own personal private religious holiday.

I do not think anyone should be forced to go to a gay pride celebration.  I’m queer and I wouldn’t want to work at one. They are really rather disgusting and I do not want to be associated with them.

Marion, when you speak of “persons who live entirely within their own heads, who have in place tall and thick barriers against all external influences, and who cannot conceive that others might live in any other way”, are you describing your “shared reality”?

You wrote, “Some people… insist that what goes on within their own heads is the only reality”.

I don’t insist that you believe, “but I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man” (1 Corinthians 11:3).

MM, having read several of your posts, it wouldn’t surprise me if you next were to from the Declaration of Independence, your version: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect blooming onion, order from Outback Steakhouse, one of their sizzling dollars off meals for just $9.99.”

Yeah, whatever. Very droll. Enjoy yourself?

Peace out.

I’m already partying with them every year. Gays rock, you do not! Jesus didn’t hang around with you Pharisees; he preferred the sinners and the despised tax collectors. Didn’t you pay attention to the Gospel reading at today’s Mass?

I’ve often observed that in comedy the best actor plays the part of the droll.  And in this farce of life, wise men pass their time in gaiety.

Jesus was indeed merciful toward sinners who repented. But He told those who were blinded by their devotion to sin, “your sin remains.”

Those who are blinded by their devotion to sin and evildoing, those with seared consciences, who spend their days proclaiming that what is evil is good, and that what is good is evil, now dare to invoke the name of the Master in their endeavors.

They will have much to answer for on That Day.

Why is it always “THEY will have much to answer for”?

From today’s Gospel reading:

“Two people went up to the temple area to pray;
one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector.
The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself,
‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—
greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector.
I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’
But the tax collector stood off at a distance
and would not even raise his eyes to heaven
but beat his breast and prayed,
‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’
I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former;
for whoever exalts himself will be humbled,
and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Please don’t change the subject, Karen.

We were speaking about those who attempt to call evil homosexual acts “good.”

However, God will not be mocked.

All those who call evil good and good evil, and who teach others to do so, will have much to answer for.

I’m not changing the subject.  “We” includes me and you and everyone, sister, and we are all subject to judgment, and that judgment isn’t limited to calling “evil homosexual acts good”.  We all have much to answer for.

I’m not sure it’s always “they”.  Sometimes it’s “thou” as in “holier than thou”.

“We all have much to answer for”

When we - you or I - make a good Confession, repent of our sins, resolve to commit them no more, and do penance, Catholics believe that God sets our sins as far as the East is from the West, and though they be as scarlet, our sins shall be made white as snow.

To the extent that a Catholic has sincerely confessed, been absolved, and made a sincere amendment of his or her life, he or she won’t have to answer the charge for that sin.

But if he says, “it’s not really a sin, after all,” then what remedy can there be for the judgement that awaits him?

That’s what is worrisome.

I don’t worry about the man who says, “I need to repent of my sins.” He’s in good shape. I worry about the man who says, “my sins aren’t sins, I’ve decided. I like them, and I want others to imitate them, if they are so inclined.”

A devilish business, that.

I agree, Karen, that we are all subject to judgement, including those who point the finger judgementally at those who dare to point out evil and unnatural acts.

Actually, the judging we are forbidden to do is *not* that of pointing out another’s sin. (Indeed, we are at times required to point out another’s sin; it’s called the duty of fraternal correction.)

No, the judging we are forbidden to do is to determine that (in our opinion) one is eternally damned. Even ourselves. We are not allowed to determine that, not even in our own case. We are to trust in the mercies of God, Who is the just Judge.

However, when we see lying, cheating, stealing, murder, blasphemy, adultery, the sin of Sodom, and so on, we are not to ignore these sins. When someone calls lying “spinning”; cheating “creative accounting”; murder “termination”; blasphemy “artisic expression”; adultery “open marriage”, the sin of Sodom “my lifestyle” and so on, we are not to remain silent. There’s no point. God has forbidden all these things; they are evil, and are not to be called “good.”

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil.

God will not be mocked.

Marion, confession addresses the past.  Who is living in the past?  Confession at 9 am doesn’t necessitate that I (or you or whoever) are “white as snow” at 9 pm.  It doesn’t necessitate that “we” are any whiter than “they”.  Who are “we” and “they” anyway?  Anyone can type the words “I need to repent of my sins”, even a unrepentant wolf in sheep’s clothing.  Is such a person “we”, or is he “they”?  The words a person types doesn’t dictate his state of grace or whether “he’s in good shape”.  Similarly, if he types, “it’s not a [mortal] sin for me, I’ve decided [though an examination of conscience]”, I not only don’t know what “it” is but I also don’t know whether he’s right or wrong in what he’s saying.  It very well might not be a mortal sin for him.  So why should I say he’s among the “they” rather than the “we”?  Were I to proclaim “judgment awaits him but not me”, who says I’m right about that?

You say “the judging we are forbidden to do is to determine that (in our opinion) one is eternally damned”.  The issue is not only whether he’s “eternally damned” (as when he dies at some later date) but also the state of his soul today.  The Church teaches that “although [given sufficient information] we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.”

You then give a list of alleged sins, but again, it is not a simple task to rightly decide whether a person has objectively committed them.  For example, the Church teaches that “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving”, and that “theft” involves “usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner”.  It may well be that something you firmly allege to be a lie or theft is in fact not a lie or theft when all the facts are circumstances are known.  Who is omniscient to know that?  To say “when we see lying, cheating, stealing… we are not to ignore these sins” begs the question of whether we have in fact seen it.  Claiming you’ve seen it doesn’t make it so, and to “not hesitate to call it” when you should hesitate to call it is a sin.

You wrote, “I do know right from wrong”, but the Church teaches that we’re still in school, that “The education of the conscience is a lifelong task” and that it/you can be in error.

Karen, I’m not sure of the point of several of the distinctions you are making. You wrote: “confession addresses the past.  Who is living in the past?” My earlier point about the sacrament of penance was not that it had the power to erase all sins for all time, but that, if at any given moment I am conscious that I have committed a sin, I may confess it and be forgiven in the Sacrament of Penance. Then I won’t have it “to answer for” that sin any longer.

Isn’t the Sacrament of Penance wonderful?

You wrote further, “Were I to proclaim ‘judgment awaits him but not me’, who says I’m right about that?”

Um. I sure don’t. Judgment awaits us all, Karen. That is a solemn fact. One way to face up to that solemn fact is to pretend it’s not a fact - to go into denial, meaninglessness, and nihilism: “Nothing really matters. We can’t know anything. We don’t know what we’re doing, or what we’re about. I’m clueless; I’m utterly without a clue. So don’t judge me, God.”

That’s not the way the Good Shepherd teaches His sheep to come into the sheepfold. He said, “My sheep know Me; they know the sound of My voice, and they follow Me.” When they hear a voice calling, the sheep don’t look around, look at each other, look down at the ground, look up at the sky, then take another bite of grass, and say, “who the heck was that calling, back there, do you suppose?” See, those would be sheep who want to stay put right where they are, and not heed the shepherd.

His sheep don’t behave that way.

Karen wrote: “You wrote, ‘I do know right from wrong. . .’”

I did? Where?

“. . . but the Church teaches that we’re still in school, that ‘The education of the conscience is a lifelong task’ and that it/you can be in error.”

You are correct. I agree with you. If, for example, an eight-year-old child who is still in school and is still learning to spell, tries to think how to spell a polysyllabic word, she may get it wrong, but if that eight-year-old child goes to the dictionary, and looks up the proper spelling of the word “iniquity”, and copies it down, that child will have spelled the word “iniquity” correctly.

It’s really not that hard, if you know how.

Similarly, the Church teaches that homosexual acts are objectively morally evil - or sinful - and that Christians are to steer clear of committing them. We don’t have to worry about how well-formed our consciences are at the moment; we simply seek the authority of Jesus Christ as He speaks to us through His Church. We are not to judge the ultimate disposition of the souls of those who commit such acts; we are, however, not to encourage, participate, counsel, or consent to the commission of such acts.

So. That’s not Marion saying “homosexual acts are objectively morally disordered” or the conscience of Marion saying, “homosexual acts are objectively morally disordered,” but Jesus Christ, the King of Kings, Head of the Church, the Good Shepherd, informing His people, “homosexual acts are objectively morally disordered.”

On me you can’t rely. On Him, you can bet the rent. And your life.

Just don’t listen to voices that call evil good and good evil. They may look like they’re from the Good Shepherd, but they’re not, they’re not. Don’t buy what they’re selling, is all I’m saying. Bad stuff. Mess you up. Steer clear.

Marion, you wrote “if at any given moment I am conscious that I have committed a sin, I may confess it and be forgiven in the Sacrament of Penance”.  But we also “may” not.  This applies to us all.  And so why should I say that “THEY will have much to answer for” if we all face an uncertain future, if not only in regard to the time since last confession (which even if it’s been just a short while may be quite significant) but also in regard to the future itself?

You wrote, “Judgment awaits us all, Karen. That is a solemn fact.”  And other people say it’s a religious belief that they do not share and not necessarily a fact at all.  What’s “fact” to you?  As a word, and since you’ve mentioned the dictionary, the dictionary offers a variety of meanings, including “something believed to be true” and “something said to be true”.  As such, if someone believes or says that judgment doesn’t await us all, that too would be “fact”.  But perhaps then you’d disagree with “fact”.

Notably, you used terms like “denial, meaninglessness, and nihilism” in connection with the statement “We don’t know what we’re doing”.  But who actually made the statement “We don’t know what we’re doing”?  In this discussion, they seem to be your words, are they not?  Yet the Church teaches that Jesus said, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”  Are the words of Jesus false?  Is he not the model?  Is Church teaching “denial, meaninglessness, and nihilism”?  The Church teaches, in the words of the Holy Father, that it is the “real truth” that “perhaps NO sinner completely escapes that ignorance and is therefore beyond the range of that intercession for forgiveness which issues from the most tender heart of Christ dying on the cross.”  And goes on to say that “one could say” that Jesus “intentionally included [all humanity] in [his] prayer to the Father”, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” And that it “is certainly valid also for us, ‘because they know not what they do.’”  Thus, the Church teaches that it may well be true, if not certainly so, that we don’t know what we’re doing.  None of us.  The Holy Father also reminds that “The same line is followed also by the Apostle Peter who, in his discourse to the people of Jerusalem, extends to all the excuse of ‘ignorance’.”  If a person sincerely accepts the “excuse of ignorance”, the “real truth”, Church teaching, is that “denial, meaninglessness, and nihilism” to you?

You wrote, “When [sheep] hear a voice calling, the sheep don’t look around, look at each other, look down at the ground, look up at the sky, then take another bite of grass, and say, ‘who the heck was that calling, back there, do you suppose?’”  But that straw creation is what you say.  St. John says: “Do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”  And St. Paul instructs: “Test everything.”  Heeding the shepherd’s “test everything” instruction is following the shepherd.  Of course, in our everyday world, sheep are responsive to many influences, and may also follow cows, llamas, clickers, other sheep, etc. and be scattered about by wolves.  Sheep may have hearing impairments.  Sheep may even be gay, including “born gay”.  And notably, the Good Shepherd has more than one fold of sheep.

You asked about the statement, “I do know right from wrong”.  I see that it was originally posted by “Mia”, and the “you” in my earlier comment may be to Mia if she wishes to respond.

You wrote, “if that eight-year-old child goes to the dictionary, and looks up the proper spelling of the word ‘iniquity’, and copies it down, that child will have spelled the word ‘iniquity’ correctly.”  Who says?  The dictionary is not the authority on the correct spelling of words.  The dictionary is a guide reflecting popular use.  (And not all dictionaries are particularly helpful if one doesn’t already know how to spell the word.)

You wrote, “Similarly, the Church teaches that homosexual acts are objectively morally evil - or sinful - and that Christians are to steer clear of committing them.”  That is like saying we are taught to “Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch!”  It doesn’t tell us what they are.  According to the Catechism, “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.”  It uses the broad/vague word “relations” and subjective “experience”(s).  In addition, according to the Catechism, “homosexual acts” are “intrinsically disordered” and “contrary to natural law” and “close the sexual act to the gift of life”.  While those may be clues, it’s not a definition, and to many people, no more helpful than “the Jubjub bird”.

You wrote, “We don’t have to worry about how well-formed our consciences are at the moment”.  First, who is worried?  “Worry” seems to be one of your issues, if not simply your choice of word.  People may expend some amount of mental/physical/spiritual/financial/time/social resources in their decision making process / personal development, whether that expenditure is labeled “worry”, “analysis”, “prayer”, “discernment”, “consideration”, “care”, “effort”, “simply seek” or whatever.  And many may argue that whatever difference there may be between these labels that it’s simply a matter of perspective rather than substance.  Second, you say “at the moment”, but it’s always the moment called “now”.  Some people might therefore read your statement as saying “We never have to care whether we hear Jesus rightly.  If you’re not doing as you please, you’re worrying about it.  We don’t have to worry or care about our decisions.”  Anyway, whatever words like “worry” and “at the moment” might or might not mean to you, it remains the many people may experience a worrisome “gnawing of conscience” and are instructed to “work out your salvation with fear and trembling”.

And many people report that although (or perhaps because) they “simply seek the authority of Jesus Christ as He speaks to us through His Church”, it remains that “at the moment” not all have apparently come to the conclusion that (any/some/all) “homosexual acts are objectively morally disordered”.  The same applies to “same-sex marriages” and many other issues.

The Church nevertheless teaches that these people “must follow the certain judgment” of their conscience, even if you think, or the Church teaches that, that their judgment differs from Church teaching.  Not unsurprisingly, the combination of “must follow” and “certain” poses a particular problem for people who might not find that they’ve arrived at any certain judgment, including perhaps a certain judgment that they haven’t arrived at any certain judgment.  Some people might not be certain they should even be following the Church’s instruction on conscience or other instructions.  Many people may find them confusing, even perhaps triggering a debilitating mental disorder.  As such, some people have suggested that perhaps there are people (if not all people) who actually shouldn’t follow Church teaching.

Liseux said, “I agree, Karen, that we are all subject to judgement, including those who point the finger judgementally at those who dare to point out evil and unnatural acts.”

Mia and Marion, please demonstrate where I forbade anyone to judge.

Let’s see who’s mixing it up, Mia.

A mix up or collection of verses:

“Stop judging, that you may not be judged.” (Matthew 7:1)

“For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.” (Matthew 7:2)

“You are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment. For by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things.” (Romans 2:1)

“Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?” (Luke 12:57)

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.” (CCC#1790)

“Judge for yourselves what I am saying” (1 Corinthians 10:15)

“Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.” (John 7:24)

“Amen, I say to you that you who have followed me, in the new age, when the Son of Man is seated on his throne of glory, will yourselves sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Matthew 19:28)

Karen wrote, “The Church nevertheless teaches that these people ‘must follow the certain judgment’ of their conscience, even if you think, or the Church teaches that, that their judgment differs from Church teaching. . . ”

Not so, in fact just the reverse is true: Catholics are obliged to inform themselves what the Church believes and teaches, and to give their loyal assent to all of it as unto Jesus Christ Himself, without exception. If knowing what the Church - Christ Himself - holds to be true, they refuse to assent to one article, that Catholic no longer follows the will of the Lord, but his own will. As Saint Thomas Aquinas says:

“Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. . .  Therefore it is clear that [such a one] with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will.”

The Catholic faith is not an “opinion,” however much some may like to portray it that way. Our opinions will not save us; only our faith will save us.

Karen wrote further: “Some people might not be certain they should even be following the Church’s instruction on conscience or other instructions. Many people may find them confusing, even perhaps triggering a debilitating mental disorder. As such, some people have suggested that perhaps there are people (if not all people) who actually shouldn’t follow Church teaching.”

People in that state need to consult a wise and experienced priest. “Church teaching” is the counsel of Almighty God who created us, who is our eternal Father, and who watches over each of us with a tender regard. That the merciful and loving Father would direct one of His children in a way that would harm them is inconceivable. To follow the Father’s will may at times be painful, intensely painful, stressful, and so on. But to disobey the Father’s will can never lead to anything good (i.e., health, happiness, salvation) either in this life or in the next.

It’s a lot like following the instructions that are in the owners’ manual of your new car. The owners’ manual says, “Use at least a 10W40 motor oil, and change the oil at least every 3,000 miles for the first 10,000.” I can say, “Well, I’ll use 10W60, and change the oil only every 10,000 miles.” I can say, “I don’t believe in changing the oil in a new car, and I’m not going to do it at all. It’s a new car!” I can say whatever I want. I can say, “10W40? What does that mean? What does that convey? To some, 10W40 might suggest extra virgin olive oil. To others, it might suggest Johnson’s Baby oil. It all depends. How is anyone to know what 10W40 really means?”

Such persons are going to do whatever they want, and no matter how they slice, dice, spin, select, argue, and dissect the instructions, if they don’t follow the mfg’s instructions, they’re going to end up needing a new engine when their car is between two and three years old.

Same with sin. Sin messes us up, plain and simple. In eternity, and right here, right now, too. God tells us what to do and what to avoid. We can parse what He tells us, spin it, argue with it, dissect it, argue, beg, plead, cajole, etc., etc. but in the end, if we go against what God says, we only make misery for ourselves.

The Church and God desire one thing: our true happiness.

Marion, no, it is not “just the reverse is true” but that both are true, and one is not the reverse of the other, except perhaps in your imagination/understanding.  Though as you say “Catholics are obliged to inform themselves what the Church believes and teaches”, it remains that (1) it’s not simply up to the person’s choice and efforts whether he’s properly informed, and (2) the Church teaches that “A human being MUST ALWAYS obey the certain judgment of his conscience”—even if his “moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments”, for “if he were deliberately to act against [the certain judgment of his conscience], he would condemn himself.”

The Church does not teach that the man condemns himself simply because he doesn’t follow Church teaching or simply because he’s not informed.  It also requires a truly deliberate act of his will, and even if he think he acts with such true deliberation, that doesn’t necessitate that it’s so.  The Church teaches: “Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.”  On the other hand, willful ignorance is not necessarily excusing as “when a man takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.”

You wrote, “If knowing what the Church - Christ Himself - holds to be true, they refuse to assent…”.  Here you’re getting into what I’ve already said: “The Church… teaches that… people ‘must follow the certain judgment’ of their conscience.”  If the certain judgment of his conscience is in agreement with Church teaching, he must not refuse.  Likewise, if it happens that the certain judgment of his conscience is not in agreement with what is (alleged to be) Church teaching, he still must obey the certain judgment of his conscience—as Church teaching instructs him to do—and not follow the (alleged) Church teaching to which his conscience does not bind him.  As such, when a man obeys the certain judgment of his conscience, even though his “moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments”, his conscience does not hold that he “no longer follows the will of the Lord”.

You wrote, “People in that state need to consult a wise and experienced priest”, but it’s not that likely (or always morally necessary in regard to culpability) that an unwise and inexperienced, not to mention, confused person is going to do so, or recognize who that is, or even benefit from it.  It may even it make it worse for him.  Even if the bishop were to sit down with a person and say, “Look here: This is what the Church teaches…”, it remains that the person might not be informed, for any of the excusing or non-excusing reasons the Church identifies, not to mention whatever reasons that the Church might not identify.

You wrote, “That the merciful and loving Father would direct one of His children in a way that would harm them is inconceivable.”  That’s another of your straw creations.  I’ve been talking about fallible one-size-fits-some English human instructions delivered by fallible messengers, including those whom the Church has designated to act in His place who might add their own “touch” to the message and to the children.

You wrote, “Such persons are going to do whatever they want”.  Who doesn’t?  Puppets and hostages?  Maybe, when such persons hear the ransom has been paid, they’re going to want to follow Christ.  Besides, the Church instructs that such a person (and indeed all of us) “must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience”.  Not Marion’s conscience.  Not Fr. Bill’s conscience.  But his conscience.  As such, a problem arises when he doesn’t do what he (and his moral conscience) wants, i.e. a house divided, when he opposes himself.

You wrote, “sin messes us up, plain and simple.”  There’s more to it than that.  Though “God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil”, “evil contributes to the perfection of the universe, as shadows to the perfection of a picture, or harmony to that of music”.  Or, “O happy fault,... which gained for us so great a Redeemer!”

Untangling subjective culpability and objective sin would appear to be necessary at this point.

Story of a Belgian refugee during WWI who was taken in by some kind English landlords, given a job and a home. All the while, he acted as a spy for the Germans. Was opening letters addressed to high-ranking British officers, copying their contents, and forwarding contents to the enemy occupying his homeland.

Dastardly deed. Ungrateful to his kind adopted friends. Indeed. But rest of the story is that the Germans were holding this man’s mother and sister hostage, had deliberately allowed hims to escape, and that German agents visited and reminded the refugee daily that if he should slacken his spy efforts, that his Mom and Sis back in Belgium would pay the price.

Can you imagine? Awful. Horrible.

This man was acting under duress. Yes, he was spying and betraying friends who had been kind to him, but clearly, he was not entered into this arrangement under his own free will; it had been thrust upon him by evildoers.

So: Objectively, spying, lying, betraying those who have assisted you is not behavior to celebrate; however, a good and decent man may be coerced into doing such things against his will. He is still a good and decent man, but acting under coercion, doing something dishonorable.

There there’s David “Son of Sam” Berkowitz, who shot and killed a number of unarmed persons who were simply minding their own business, and were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Took the cops a while to catch him, and when they did, as soon as they began talking with him, the cops themselves said, “this individual is clearly a loop-job.” He murdered a bunch of folks in cold blood, folks who represented no threat to him or to anyone, who never had a chance, but it was obvious to all that this individual was not acting freely or with understanding of his actions. There is no subjective culpability in the actions of a madman. Subjectively such a person might be compared to a three-year-old child having a trantrum or misbehaving, but in the body of a full-gown adult . . . an adult with an automatic weapon. Dangerous stuff.

Son of Sam not guilty by reason of insanity; I don’t judge even his subjective culpability - that’s for God alone to do. God may well view such a one as He does an innocent child, for all I know. I don’t know. But the point is, as a society, although we don’t judge the subjective culpability of a Son of Sam, we don’t *celebrate* stalking and mowing down innocent fellow citizens who are minding their own business. That’s NEVER something to approve of, endorse, support, much less celebrate.

Many persons, who aren’t acting under duress, or deranged, nevertheless get caught up in sinful acting out - especially sexual, gambling, alcohol, drug use, and become entrapped in these compulsive behaviors to which they do not give full consent of their will. The Church teaches, and priests understand very well, that there is decreased subjective moral culpability in such cases. God tells us that drunkeness is a sin, but a poor, alcoholic, homeless individual, who begs $5 and buys a bottle of rot-gut to help stave of the D.T.s (seizures from alcohol withdrawal) is almost certainly acting under a terrible duress - the duress of illness.

However, as Christians, we don’t *celebrate* drunkeness, nor do we normalize drunkeness, nor do we teach children they should be proud of drinking to excess. No! We understand that we are not to judge others; that sometimes people act under pressures and compulsions we don’t understand - and we are to pray for them, we are to ask God to deliver them from these destructive compulsions . . . but we are not to celebrate the destructive behaviors.

We don’t celebrate compulsive gambling, compulsive drug use, compulsive sexual acting out, whether heterosexual or homosexual. These are not healthy behaviors; they are destructive, and God tells us that when we choose how to act, we are not to act in these ways. If we are already caught up in them, we are beg Him to deliver us.

No Christian should attend a Gay Pride Celebration. That is sending the wrong message.

Marion, in general, it is subjective as to what people are “celebrating” or doing at a “pride parade” or “gay pride celebration”, or whether their behaviors are “destructive” rather than constructive or just breathing air.  And that’s also the case whether it’s at a “pride parade”, the mall or church.

But whatever the circumstance, and in every circumstance, including parades, we may rejoice and give thanks, “for this is the will of God for you in Christ Jesus”.

Do you give thanks for the Holocaust, Karen? Was that the will of God? Had you lived in the 1940s would you have said, “let us feely and joyfully participate in the godly and acceptable Holocaust?”

P.S. I take back my question of 9:37 AM.

You have already long since given us all the answer.

No matter what you might type in reply to this, Karen, you’ve already made it very clear your views on sin and on the good and the evil deeds of which man is capable.

So, don’t bother. I don’t want to put you to any more trouble. We know already. You have made yourself extremely clear.

Thank you and good-bye.

The Church teaches that moral conscience obliges that in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth.  The love of the Holy Spirit made Jesus a wholesome holocaust, a total self-offering, to the Father.  From the moment of the Incarnation up until his last breath upon the Cross, the life of Jesus is an incessant holocaust, a constant handing over of himself to the Father’s will.  We are called to celebrate and to be a “holocaust offered to others”.  Religious obedience is and must remain a holocaust.  So yes, whether it’s the 1940’s or 2040’s or whenever, “let us freely and joyfully participate in the Godly and acceptable Holocaust”.

Celebrate: from L. celebratus “much-frequented; kept solemn; famous,” pp. of celebrare “assemble to honor”.

And in regard to additional views on evil which I’ve not already posted, here are just a few more:  “St. Basil points out the educative purposes served by evil; and St. Augustine, holding evil to be permitted for the punishment of the wicked and the trial of the good, shows that it has, under this aspect, the nature of good, and is pleasing to God, not because of what it is, but because of where it is; i.e. as the penal and just consequence of sin.”  And, “God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist.”

I had asked you whether you would have approved of the Nazi Holocaust in which Jewish men, women, and children were gassed or shot to death . . . and you replied:

“Religious obedience is and must remain a holocaust.  So yes, whether it’s the 1940’s or 2040’s or whenever, ‘let us freely and joyfully participate in the Godly and acceptable Holocaust’.”

Wow.

Just . . . wow.

I had no solid understanding until now what I was dealing with. Grammatically, at least, you sounded so . . . coherent.

Good-bye again, and God bless you.

Marion, no, you didn’t say “the Nazi Holocaust”.  You asked about “the godly and acceptable Holocaust”.  And it’s not just my words that “religious obedience is and must remain a holocaust”, but Pope Paul VI’s words as well.  And it remains, whether it’s the 1940’s or 2040’s or whenever, let us freely and joyfully participate in the Godly and acceptable Holocaust.

As to the seemingly much-frequented, solemn subject of the historical Nazi event, it may be said that it too is “celebrated”, i.e. from L. celebratus “much-frequented; kept solemn; famous”.

And as to your claim that you “had no solid understanding until now what” you were “dealing with”, it remains that you are dealing with yourself.

Once again, incoherent and meaningless. As is support for so-called “gay rights.”

Marion, if your understanding is “incoherent and meaningless”, then that’s what it is.

As a witness to the truth and goodness which even among her people were not eclipsed, as she accepted death with her people and for them, freely giving her life for others, St. Edith Stein is one of Nazi-era martyrs who freely gave their lives.  She freely and joyfully participated and we celebrate her participation.  “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise” is joyful. The Church sings joyfully, “Let us go joyfully to meet the Lord”.

No.

Karen, God’s will as expressed by Jesus is that “be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.”  We are called to holiness.  We should not look at or participate in parades where licentiousness or sexuality are glorified over holiness.  We are not even to talk about such things.  Can you agree that these are morally problematic events?

Pam, every day is a parade where sinful and non-sinful acts can be performed at any place and at any time, and we all participate.  Accordingly, in terms of participation, one’s acts within the parade can be sinful or not sinful, but mere participation in the parade is not intrinsically evil.  If you choose to characterize the parade as “glorification of licentiousness or sexuality over holiness”, that’s your interpretation.  Per Church teaching, I am obliged to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to the parade than to condemn it.  And in charity, I may, as “charity is infinitely inventive”.  Likewise, if by “morally problematic” you mean that mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself, then yes, we agree.  But I am not commanded to not participate in the parade.

Pam, there are people on this thread who would deny that they are “not commanded” to refrain from attempting to snooker their own grandmother out of the old lady’s social security check.

And they’d look you in the eye while they do it, and will do it with a straight face.

And then they’ll proceed to blow smoke up your tush to justify why it’s actually a good thing that they do so, and quote one or two passages from Papal encyclicals, (completely out-of-context), and by doing so will perhaps manage get some people halfway to believing they’re actually doing the old lady a favor.

Anyway, I suggest you don’t hold waste your breath waiting for any kind of a straight answer. But, if you want to, just the same, go ahead.

Marion, did you have a straight face when you posted that?  Because you’re not snookering this old lady with that one.  The fact is that people who are commanded to refrain from snookering may rightfully “deny that they are ‘not commanded’ to refrain” from snookering.  What they shouldn’t deny is that they are commanded to refrain from snookering.

But perhaps you didn’t know what you were doing when you said what you said.  As Jesus said, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”

Karen, what you seem to be dancing around, and expressing in a very roundabout sort of way, is something I actually agree with, that God’s long-standing prohibition against homosexual acts is still very much in force even today - that these are serious sin which Christians are duty-bound to avoid at all costs on pain of loss of eternal life - and that faithful Catholics are forbidden to be accessory to another’s sin by flattery, by praise, by silence, by counsel, or by attending parades expressly organized specifically to celebrate violations of _Leviticus_ prohibitions.

See? Finally, finally, I understood what you were trying to say . .  and we are in complete agreement! Thank you! I think that is just terrific!

Marion, apparently you still don’t understand, and I’m not sure you ever will or that you even want to.  I’m not going to join you in being an accessory to lies, calumny, slander, etc. by calling a parade a homosexual act or claiming that their “express purpose” is to “celebrate violations of Leviticus prohibitions”.  The fact is that the parades are organized and attended by all sorts people with all sorts of purposes, including by people who have no desire to “celebrate violations of Leviticus prohibitions”, and yes, that includes many LGBT people.  You can continue to spit into the wind all you want.  You will not rain on my parade.

This topic has gathered a variety of feelings and responses. It seems the moralizing of those who are homosexual is rooted in hypocrisy, bigotry, hate and unintelligent assumptions of the human person. Whatever happened to “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” in our faith or culture? At this point the Vatican will not bless gay marriage but the Vatican has already spoken about the wrongness of harming or encouraging another to harm a person who is homosexual. So, where do the “real” Catholics receive permission to foster a lack of respect for or the dignity of a homosexual/gay person. Please stop this immedidately, go to confession if it is a sinful obssession.

Second, I’ve not read anywhere where homosexual/gay people want their “marriage” blessed in the church. They seek a civil union for financial gain that all heterosexual married couples benefit from currently.

Third, what parade have you attended where men or women shouted seemingly inappropriate comments about the quality of a person in the parade they were attracted to or found insulting. Firemen, please give over your childish behavior. So what someone says something to you. “Sticks and bones will break my bones but words will never hurt me.” Is such language appropriate - no! But does it happen, yes, sadly.

Fourth, please do not quote scripture for your personal advantage when you do not know the historical or context from which it comes. It only displays one’s ignorance and spreads more ignorance. Charity in all things!

I remember Christ praying that they all be One, not arrogant, not judgers, not telling other people they do not have a right to dignity, but that they all be of One mind and One heart. Since the college of bishops are not capable of that; it is little wonder the faithful are with no examples…

Concerned Theologian and Karen,  There are no judgments in saying no Christian should participate in gay pride parades.  Whatever anyone is celebrating and for whatever reason under whatever conditions of their life experience, the event is full of behavior that glorifies the flesh. The firemen had a conscience and say they were offended.  You can try to rationalize it, but IN LOVE, you would not want to encourage this behavior by a significant number of participants.  Concerned Theologian, you are not speaking as a Catholic Theologian.  God bless.  PRAY!

Concerned Theologian,  No one is telling anyone they don’t have a right to dignity.  Telling someone sin exists and that homosexual relations are sinful and dangerous to their soulds is enhancing EVERYONE’s dignity.  Denial does damage to one’s dignity.

Homosexuality is an intrinsic evil, and morally disordered.  It is sinful, being one of those crimes which cry to heaven itself for vengeance.  Call me a bigot all you want, but I’m not going to give in a single inch to such perversion. 

If these homosexual “crusaders” think that they can overturn the foundations of common decency and profane the sacrament of marriage while making us accept it, they have a hard lesson to learn!

The human person, although caught up in sin - which includes all of us - are made in the image and likeness of God whence their dignity derives.

There is no dignity in sinful behavior. Sin of any kind is not to be celebrated, paraded, or held up as something to be proud of. Saint Paul tells us of immorality of any kind “such things ought not even be mentioned among you.”

We ought to have public celebrations and parades in honor of all of our being created in the likeness and image of God, including Jew, Greek, male, female, slave, free, persons of all nationalities and conditions, including those who are homosexual in orientation. Parades specifically keyed to the celebration of behavior which is immoral, however, ought never to be participated in or attended by Christians, as to do so is to act as an accessory to another’s sin, which is in itself a sin.

I was concerned about this and checked on the rule in my diocese. I was instructed that for well-informed Catholics who strive to follow Church teaching, it remains a prudential judgment whether one should or should not go to these public events, and reasonable Catholics might come to different judgments.  I was also warned against saying that everyone participating or attending is sinning and against reductionist interpretations of public events.

For a Christian to offer public sacrifice to the Roman pagan gods might have been considered simply a matter of “prudential judgment,” and some 3rd century Church authorities might have warned Christians against “reductionist interpretations of public events.”

Christians might have held “private reservations” about the meaning behind their offering meat to the idols. And thus have avoided being sent to the arena to become meat themselves. (Meat for the lions, that is.)

Instead, the Christian martyrs insisted that the obvious meaning of sacrificing to idols entailed a rejection of Christ’s sovereign godhood, and were willing to die rather than to do any such thing.

If only! If only the Christian martyrs had realized that the meaning of sacrificing to the Roman idols was nothing more than a matter of “IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT YOUR DEFINITION OF IS, IS” they might have escaped death and gone on to live honorable as well as fervent Christian lives.

What a tragedy. What a waste. If only the 3rd century martyrs had been as . . . sophisticated about the ontological meaning of one’s actions . . . as we are today.

If the Pope told you lemmings to jump off the cliff, you would obey him without reflection. His medieval notions of human sexuality are what is sinful, as they cause harm to God’s children.

Homosexual behaviour is a natural variation (for some)  and is morally neutral. If shared in a loving, respectful way, it is deemed good in God’s eyes.

The Lord is my shepherd, and he made me gay.

Kyle, it’s the “medieval notions” of human sexuality that sustain the family and sustain society. Look at Europe today as they have contracepted, aborted, and sterilized their society to death, as you will see a dieing society.

So much for “modern” or post-modern sexuality- it’s a society killer. At least for the Westerners.

The Muslims will conquer them without even a fight the rate they’re going over there. 

Also, please tell us how male homosexual sex, with parts that do NOT fit, is natural at all. It is sterile, harmful to the body parts, and spreads disease. That’s not natural.

” . . . medieval notions of human sexuality are what is sinful, as they cause harm to God’s children.”

“God’s children?” “God’s children” would know that written prohibitions against adultery, incest, and homosexual sodomy originate in the Biblical book of _Leviticus_, held by both Jewish and Catholic authorities to have been written down by the Prophet and Patriarch Moses, who lived during the 12th century B.C., two millenia before the medieval times were gaining traction in Europe.

You’ll have to do better than that.

These prohibitions have been in force continuously for more than 3,000 years, first among the Israelites, and continued by the Orthodox Jews down to this very day, and also among the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians people down to this very day.

You can’t blame the Pope for what Orthodox Jews and Eastern Orthodox Christians forbid; he’s not the boss of them.

The 20th Chapter reads in part:

“The LORD said to Moses . . .

“Be careful, therefore, to observe what I, the LORD, who make you holy, have prescribed.

“Anyone who curses his father or mother shall be put to death; since he has cursed his father or mother, he has forfeited his life.

“If a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.

“If a man disgraces his father by lying with his father’s wife, both the man and his stepmother shall be put to death; they have forfeited their lives. . . .

“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives. . .

“If a man has carnal relations with an animal, the man shall be put to death, and the animal shall be slain.

“If a woman goes up to any animal to mate with it, the woman and the animal shall be slain; let them both be put to death; their lives are forfeit.”

Which of these other “medieval” prohibitions, I wonder, should also be done away with, since “God’s children” may not like them, either?

Cursing your parents?

Adultery?

Incest?

Bestiality?

God’s children offended God by disobeying His commandments 3,000 years ago, and they have done so ever since. That is no reason for God to do away with His commandments; it is reason for His children to repent and to turn away from their sins - whether cursing parents, incest, bestiality, or homosexual sodomy. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

More and more scientific research indicates that certain persons are born with a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. The gene even runs in some families.

Is it therefore right for the active alcoholic to say, “God made me a drunk!”. . . ?

The Church has always taught that drunkeness is a sin; should the Church do away with that prohibition because some people are congenitally predisposed to alcoholism?

No! No! No, and no!

Dear Kyle,  You may think God made you gay, but more likely there have been other influences that lead you to that choice.  It has been my experience that ignorant and sometimes evil people will act to make children believe they are gay.  They will make remarks, raise doubts, set up situations for failure, judge by appearances etc, etc.  The child doesn’t even realize the influence they are having.  I am a devout Catholic and some have tried to attack my children.  I realized my children were not even aware that they were being undermined.  Lots of prayer got us through.  I pray for you.  St. Paul told us NO sodomite would enter the gates of heaven.  God loves you.  Turn to Him for healing.  P.S.  Catholics aren’t lemmings, but we realize 2000 years of wisdom are within our magesterium.  Wise people don’t ignore that.

“It has been my experience that ignorant and sometimes evil people will act to make children believe they are gay.”

Mine, too.

Some relatives of mine - constant “gay” teasing by an older brother on a much younger brother. Started in on baby bro when he was younger than he can remember - maybe around age of 5 - and kept up the teasing until younger bro was big enough and strong enough to make older brother figure it wasn’t worth taking the bruising he was going to get if he teased him any longer.

Younger brother came up never feeling secure around women and girls, was sure he was “gay” all his life, and feels sure that this constant teasing is what did it.

Horrible.

What’s even more horrible is that - as human beings go - younger brother is worth eight times the older one. If not more.

We are living among terrible spiritual poverty.  One tactic used to undermine any positive influence I might have was to raise questions on my sexual orientation.  One gentleman said to me, sneering, “We can make anything true if we push someone enough.”  Someone else said they thought it was ok because I know homosexual relations are sinful.  Very sad and sick.  Some priests are going along with it because there are so many homosexuals in the priesthood.  As one holy priest said to me, “Their consciences are dead.”  God does not use evil to do good.

Unbelievable! Some of the comments on here beggar the imagination in their dissemblance of logical thinking and their relativistic “we can’t really know anything” philosophical mindlessness….the deconstructionist mind brought to its logical conclusion - Its like talking to a wall… But most of you(with one or two exceptions) answered with patience and love over and over again - interesting from that point of view and a good lesson for the rest of us…

Mr. CPR,
that is a pretty heavy accusation. anything to back it up? Or is Pope the name of a friend of yours who works in the public school system?

As if YOU have any credibility!

Thank God I became a protestant. I shall do as my conscience dictates; not follow the ignorant, dictates of a pre-scientific buffoon in a dress and red girly shoes in Rome. Happily, many people are abandoning this cruel, ridiculous church and its false claims.

Human rights, not popish dictates!

Terry, the Catholic Church is the only institution which keeps one from becoming a child of the age, according to G.K. Chesterton.

Whatever dictates you now follow allow you to make slanderous and false statements. Sounds like you’re now your own fallible popette.

...Ladies and Gentlemen, the enlightened mind.

(Remember to breath, so that you don’t pass out from the excitement like a teenage girl at a Justin Bieber concert).

I am a congregation of one: an intelligent being with an open mind and a kind heart.  Yes, I am my own Pope. Fallible, yes, but living an authentic life.

I am not in blind obeisance to a vile organization. The fact that your institution has survived is only due to your history of forced submission, unjust taxation, lies, political deception, distortion and corporal punishment.

What a shameful institution! You have nothing to be proud of in the Roman Church. Anathema to you.

Terry, you are mislead.  But I do say, God bless you!  You are in my prayers.

Just to be clear, my snarky comment was directed toward Mr. All-Caps, not you Terry.

To be doubly clear, I’m not a Catholic. I’m basically a secular humanist.

Terry, look at it from my perspective:

You say, “You have nothing to be proud of in the Roman Church. Anathema to you”.

Liseux says, “God bless you!  You are in my prayers.”

I’d take a community that teaches Liseux’s response over a community that teaches yours (which is hardly more than a tantrum) any day.

Terry, Sorry to hear you left the Catholic Church.  These are difficult times and there have been cover-ups and shuffling of pedophiles.  It is disgraceful and we are ashamed.  But all of the sinful action of all the sinful priests, deacons, laypeople doesn’t negate Jesus’ true presence in the Eucharist and Jesus’ presence in the confessional and Jesus’ faithfulness to His word and grace in all the sacraments.  Don’t let the actions of broken and sometimes even evil individuals separate you from Jesus TRULY PRESENT in the EUCHARIST.  God is FAITHFUL and KEEPS HIS WORD even when men or women do not!  God bless and come home brother!

Maranatha, Lord Jesus!  Please come back soon, we are living in Hell!

Brenda, dear: They are the good times - people are housed, fed, protected. You’d rather be living in the middle ages when the Church ruled? Your outlook is so negative. ROCK ON, sister!

Erica, “not protected” from the onslaught of Perversion!

Erica,  You must not read or hear the news.  Heard of Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan, the suffering of women thoughout the world the devastation in louisiana, the homeless.  Truth is the poor we will always have with us.  Jesus told us.  Do you recognize that sin exists?  The greatest cure is our personal holiness.  Homosexual relationships come from a lack of love in one way or another.  The people in them are not evil, but they are doing an act against nature.  Their sin draws them from the Church that tells them the truth.  Their families are asked to choose between the teaching of Jesus Christ and the child.  Society is divided.  People go so far as to stereotype men and women to try to “protect” themselves from homosexuality.  Children are raised to fear their fellow man. It is all a consequence of sin.  People need to recognize the truth of the teaching of Jesus Christ.  He is the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE.  Disregarding or negating Him is self-destruction

Brenda is not protected by a solid education and critical thinking skills. She’ll stick to being told what to think and do, and who to disdain. I wish she could shake off the shackles of her mythological beliefs.

Pamela, dear. The sin is all in your mind. Your living on a bible verse from 5000 years ago. Meanwhile, you’re being governed by a largely homosexual clergy who don’t want you to know what they’re up on their holidays. I don’t blame them at all. Man is not meant to be celibate; so gay or straight, they should get themselves a partner and live in the rectory together. That’s what Jesus would want: happy, loved, fulfilled people in service to Him.

Erica,  Peace of Christ. God is probably too old for you!  Do you really want to use that as an argument?  There are some homosexual priests and it was one of the reasons for the clergy sex abuse scandel.  John Paul II said no more and Pope Benedict is retraining whole orders to correct the problem. Jesus teaching is the truth today yesterday and tomorrow.  Jesus wants faithful people who know what true happiness is.  He is a healer.  He doesn’t want any homosexual to be owned by this sin. True love is sacrificial. Not into its own “happy, loved, fulfilled” mode.  Your idea of happiness is destruction for society around you.  God knows where your true happiness is.  He has counted the hairs on your head! Imagine the love he has for you!  He is asking something in return.  Love him, get to know him, read his Word.  (As the joke says, God asks the woman as she meets him at her death, “You like to read!”  She says “Yes, Lord very much!”  He says, “So did you read my book? I only wrote the one?!”

Maybe the word “homosexual” is too confusing.  I think “same sex attraction” better describes it.  People who are attracted to those of their same sex encounter problems—as do those who are attracted to those of the opposite sex.  Everyone has their longings, desires and urgings but it is what we do with them that makes the difference. This is where morality comes in to it—self restraint, fortitude and self respect.  Sexual urges do not in and of themselves bring with them certain “rights.” Everyone has their stumbling block—their cross—and all are accepted by God and the Catholic Church.  Sexuality is a private issue and has absolutely no place in the public square.  Sexual activity is a moral issue and it would be like forcing all Americans to march in a a parade promoting atheists or Episcopalians, Catholics or Hindus or Mormons.  Our wonderful country allows us to express our opinions about these beliefs but we cannot be forced to accept them.

@Chris,  Peace of Christ.  There is nothing confusing about the word homosexuality.  Trying to make a moral wrong more palatable by clothing it with a euphamism is being part of the problem, not part of the solution.  Sexuality has become a public issue because it has been forced on us whether we like it or not.  We agree that it is morally wrong to force participation in the parade and yet it happened.

While I agree that it is wrong for people to be forced to participate in support of something they don’t agree with or believe in, I also believe it is wrong to judge people based on their sexuality. Akin makes it seem as though there is going to be some kind of homosexual uprising. What are we “in for in the future” and what is the “delicate position that public school teachers are now in?” If it’s a matter of preventing hate crimes from occurring in public schools, teachers should do just that regardless of their position on homosexuality. They are responsible for the children they teach and should protect them from such violence. Their aversion to homosexuality shouldn’t even come into play in this case—if you see a child in a dangerous situation it is instinctive to protect them from harm. I was born and raised a Catholic, yet I because of the view of homosexuality I find myself moving away from the Church. I can’t justify alienating the people I love and respect (who happen to be homosexuals) just because of my religion. In my faith everyone deserves respect no matter their sexuality, color, or creed. Our children and grandchildren will probably have thicker skin than we do because times are changing. My grandparents still express prejudiced feelings regarding race, religion, and sexuality. Each generation is faced with new challenges—where there was once prevalent racism in the United States, the civil rights movement abolished those feelings to the point where the majority of the nation now accepts all races. I believe prejudice against homosexuality will take the same course as racism.

Sarah,  Choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle is just that, a choice.  We were created for God.  To know, love and serve Him in this world and be together with Him in the next.  I am a tall athletic woman who played competive sports.  I saw a side of homosexuality that is not as innocuous as you seem to believe.  Children are targeted because of their build or personality or disposition or looks.  They are undermined in their attempt at manhood or womanhood by cutting remarks.  People are lured based on their weaknesses - their desire for success or money, their desire to have a life they aren’t willing to work for sometimes.  Some have just been rejected by the opposite sex too often and give up.  It is against nature to be in a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex.  God is healing love.  Homosexuality is more self-centered - “Its my life, my choice, I deserve etc.  God can overcome all this.  Families would be stronger, children would be safer, homosexuals would be healed.  Instead they put themselves before God.  That cannot be.  No sodomite, or fornicator or adulterer will enter the gates of heaven said St. Paul. Do you love your friends enough to help them choose God?

I understand and respect your opinion on this, yet I don’t agree that homosexuality is a choice. I know many people who grew up with this type of “adversity” and it’s not something that one can overcome. Some people don’t choose to be homosexual. Can you explain to me why someone would choose a lifestyle that brings so much alienation and persecution? Why would they submit themselves to cruel jokes and violence? I too am an athlete and I’ve grown up playing sports with all sorts of women. I’m not as naive as you seem to think. Some of the girls have been homosexual, but that never bothered me. If I am correct in my beliefs as a Catholic, God loves and accepts everyone. I choose to believe that. You can’t assume that you know every homosexual’s situation—some may have been rejected, others may have just been born that way. There is research that suggests that second-born sons are more likely to be homosexual than their first-born brothers. This suggests that early environmental factors play a role in one’s sexual development. This has made my family stronger and closer than it ever was.  I take issue with your quote from St. Paul. He is not just saying that only sodomites, adulterers, and fornicators will not enter the gates of heaven. There are several other supposed “sins” that will not allow one’s admission into the Kingdom of God. Galations 5: 19-21 basically says that same thing. Does that mean that anyone who is drunk or has hatred or is a heretic cannot go to heaven? If so, then a lot of people are in trouble. I’m not going to force God on anyone that doesn’t want to hear it. I don’t want God forced on me either. I don’t believe that homosexuals need to be “healed,” and to say that there is something wrong with them is incredibly bigoted. I love my friends and family enough to allow them their happiness and freedom to practice however they please. It’s no one’s place to judge them for their homosexuality—not God’s, not mine, and especially not yours because you don’t know them.

Sarah, Thanks for your honest remarks.  Men can control their sexuality.  Mankind has been around for a long time and it is only now that we see this explosion of homosexuality.  One of our Popes, Pope Leo I believe had a vision.  Satan came before God and asked for 100 years.  He said if he was given that one hundred years people would forget God and reject Him.  He was telling God that God forces us to love Him.  God gave him the twentieth century.  This is something you can research and find out about.  In the twentieth century we had the expansion of industry with the diminishment of man.  We had an explosion of materialism and we had the sexual revolution of the sixties - sleeping with many partners, free"love” they called it.  We had as an offshoot of this the explosion of all kinds of sexuality and the onset of Aids.  None of this is coincidence.  This is a spiritual battle.  You say second sons are more prone to homosexuality -Wow - can’t you see the struggle to stand out, the envy that implies?  It is only this generations homosexuals who removed homosexuality from the list of psychiatric disorders.  It is a brokenness.  It is a failure of love on ALL our parts, but it is not good for us or them or society.  All unrepentant sinners go to hell.  God doesn’t send them their, they choose it.  They reject His ways and stating the truth is not judging.  I know many homosexuals aren’t even aware of all the influences that lead them to their state. I know God loves them and he awaits their turning to Him and He will show them the way.  Nothing is impossible with God.  And Sarah, you don’t really mean it when you say not even God can Judge?  He is the only one who can.  Fear is another factor in this sin.  and jokes putting down the other sex.  It is not real love.  Sharing the true faith at the right moment or just bringing God into the reality of you life is not “forcing” God on anyone.  Just having Him as the motivating factor for all you do is witness enough.  I am not bigotted.  My eyes have been opened.   
G.

...and then there are the completely ingnorant, arrogant, frequently in error but never in doubt - but proud of it. Yolanda for example, here to represent. well done Yolanda, speaking for the crowd just mentioned.
funny you should suggest getting a life while you write your own off. irony follows you like a shadow… a shadow of death.

I don’t believe Catholics are messed up. Yet, as a Catholic, I do disagree with many of the teachings and the way we alienate certain people. I don’t believe that man is saved through faith alone. I believe that man has a right to decide for himself what he wants to believe in. But I also believe that living without faith is hard—everyone believes in something. It doesn’t need to be spiritual. I don’t entertain morbid thoughts of what will come after death, or even entertain thoughts of death itself. I’d rather just live my life accepting any and all people without any prejudices. I want to see the day when every way of life is socially acceptable and there are no more hate crimes. I hope I get to see that day.

Pam, The reason for the explosion of homosexuality is because more people are identifying themselves as homosexuals. Also, it seems like more people are getting AIDs when instead it too is being identified more. I don’t see how you can say that this is a spiritual battle. The homosexuality of second born sons has nothing to do with envy. What would they envy? If Pope Leo had a vision of Satan coming before God, that is nothing that I can research. There is no hard evidence to support that he had such a vision. Are you saying that the expansion of industry actually hurt us? I think it made us stronger. It didn’t diminish man at all; it forced man to adapt to the new era of industry just as we today have to adapt to the new era of technology. The sexual revolution of the sixties was unsafe, but it didn’t create the AIDs—it spread the disease. Saying that homosexuality is a choice and that it was seen as a psychiatric disorder is an enormous contradiction. If people have a disorder it is not something they choose. Schizophrenics don’t choose to be born with their condition, but they live with it and are aided by medication. Homosexuality is neither a psychiatric disorder nor a choice; it is a different way of life that people reject because it scares them so they make cruel jokes because they don’t understand. If God is the only one who can judge people then why even have an opinion about homosexuality at all? I don’t believe that God has opened your eyes. It seems like you are keeping your eyes tightly shut to the advent of change that will inevitably come.

Sarah, Now the truth is starting to come out.  You are struggling to believe all that the Church teaches.  Perfectly normal. Jesus said “I am the way, and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”  He also said “God make disciples of all Nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”  Now many people do not yet know Christ or have not heard all of His message, but they are created by God and He is in them.  They show they know Him by how they live or they show they reject Him by how they live.  So you do not disagree with the Church if you are talking about faith being the only way and you are talking about people in this situation.  Others have heard of Christ and don’t really know his teaching and they have an affirmative obligation to educate themselves.  And some know His teachings, pray and go to the sacraments and then reject them.  We don’t need to be decision makers here about their final destination. God IS the judge, not us. God will try to lead people back even if they leave the path because His love for us is so great.  Now you and I are educated in our faith and we see someone we love taking a direction away from the Church.  Your friends actions have weakened even your own ties to your faith.  Do you see that?  We are taught to LOVE them and be Christ’s presence to them even when they reject God’s commandments.  Active homosexuals are disobeying God’s commandments.  They may be wonderful friends and relatives, but they are putting their desires ahead of God’s commands.  That isn’t good for them or us.  Sin has consequences.  It weakens our relationship with God.  They are prodigal sons and daughters.  You are naive to say people are just identifying themselves more as homosexual. There has been a concerted political movement to make something sinful considered normal.  It is part of the secularization of our culture. And aids was first discovered in the sixties and was directly tied to homosexuality. As for Pope Leo, just google Pope Leo dream. He was the Pope.  He wasn’t quick to believe just anything. Angels guided St. Joseph in his dreams.  The spiritual is more real than the material.  As for the sexuality part, I was saying millions of celibates are around us every day.  No matter what your sexual inclination, natural or unnatural, you don’t have to act on it.  Please pray.  Pray for God’s will to be done.  If we are all doing that, you are right, there are no worries.  ps.  You should always keep in mind that your life could end at any moment and you will face God.  It helps you keep to the narrow path and it isn’t morbid, it is a beautiful thought

Helen,  So sorry you feel the way you do.  Too many of us have experienced Christ, firsthand, to agree with you.  What you see as disagreements some might see as a search for truth!  Don’t be afraid to be a seeker.  He has been waiting a long time for you!  Just start talking to Him and you will find out He is no mythical figure!

Helen, Christ teaches that you can find that He exists even if you never have any religious education and your “walk in the woods” is how you find Him.  The beauty and order and wonder of this world is not an accident.  Even science comes more and more each day to admitting “intelligent design” - our world is no accident.  If you believe any history, then why do you doubt the existence of Jesus?  He is more historically verifiable than any other figure in history.  There are multiple documents and verifications.  As to the battle of the sexes that is alive and well everywhere.  We should be encouraged that Jesus first appeared at His resurection to Mary Magdalene (or some speculate His mother Mary).  He also said “Men’s hearts must change!”  And to the women who met Him on the way of the Cross, “Do not weep for me.  Weep for yourselves and for your children because if this is what men are like when the wood is green, what will they be like when it is dry?”  He LOVES us SO much!  What we are going through he foresaw, but don’t let that keep you from HIM!  The New Testament also clarifies the Old.  And Jesus clarified that when He said we are made new in Him.  There is no more male and female or slave and free, just MEMBERS of the BODY of Christ!  Humans do a good job of sinning and messing that all up, trying to segregate sexes, label jobs as male and female, vying for power,  but we are to look at our gifts and use them for everyone, whether or not they are appreciated or accepted.

Wow, I went through thirteen years of Catholic school and in all that time I failed to miss the moral consequences of homosexuality written in the Ten Commandments. Which commandment is it exactly that says this? I agree with the previous commenter about The Bible is a collection of books written by man—it is flawed. Just because the men who wrote the books of the Bible say that homosexuality is morally wrong does not mean that God believes it is morally wrong. We can’t actually assume that anyone knows what God believes. The “political movement to make something sinful considered normal” that you talk about is strange; there is the assumption in the Constitution of the separation of church and state, so some people believing that homosexuality is sinful should have no bearing whatsoever on the rights they have. If we are guaranteed equality for all in the Constitution, shouldn’t that mean that ALL people are equal, even homosexuals? Shouldn’t that mean that they have the same rights regardless of their sexual orientation? You’ve said many times that homosexuality is on the rise, but if that’s true then should lawmakers keep up with the times and implement laws protecting homosexuals and allowing for them to have civil unions just as heterosexuals do. They are people too. Lawmakers shouldn’t care that some believe it is morally wrong because it shouldn’t be legally wrong. Jesus said “love your neighbor as much as yourself,” but does that mean only your heterosexual neighbor because some people believe homosexuality is a sin? Is love conditional in that only heterosexuals deserve our love? Are people guilty by association? If I love both heterosexuals and homosexuals am I not going to go to heaven? If so, that’s a chance that I’m willing to take and I believe that is a chance many others are willing to take. My relationship with God isn’t weakened. I’ve seen many of my homosexual friends and family still go to church and have relationships with God. If I am to believe that God is everywhere, then I believe that God doesn’t discriminate in who he chooses to listen to and accept. I’d like to think if I died tomorrow and had to face God that he would approve of my love of everyone.

Sarah,
thirteen years of Catholic school and in all that time I failed to miss the moral consequences of homosexuality written in the Ten Commandments.

Sadley, that is all too common.  It’s not because it’s not true, it’s because your “teachers” failed miserabley to teach you the tennents of the faith.  You are a product of the time.

If God does not believe homosexuality is wrong, and you reject the CCC as a true source, then can you at least expalin to me why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah?

Kathy, I can’t explain Sodom and Gomorrah to you because I find it futile to explain anything to literal believers of the Bible. What are the “tenets of the faith?” You responded to my post with criticisms of my teachers, but didn’t actually answer any of my questions. Why do you (very religious) people have a problem with homosexuals having the same rights as everyone else? What harm could it do if they are treated equally?

Hello Sarah, 

Generally it’s our Protestant brethren who are the “literal believers of the Bible.” Catholics read according to the literal translation, according to Sacred Tradition, and looking at scripture in totality.

Sarah, our Jewish elder brothers in faith taught that homosexual acts were sinful. Historical Jewish PRACTICE, not just the Old Testament, demonstrates.

The same holds true for Christianity. From our beginnings, Christian teaching and practice has held that homosexual acts are disordered to nature and sinfu.

I don’t think that any of us religious people have a problem with homosexuals having the same rights as everyone else. Looks like they want special rights.

They have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex just like I do.

I do not have the right to marry someone too yound, marry more than one person at a time, or marry my cat. Marriage has always been discriminatory.

Other “rights” can be taken care of by power of attorney and wills for hospital visits, inheritance, etc.

As for being forced to march in a homosexual parade, what this blog is about, that’s SPECIAL rights (or coeersion again).  I’m sure few homosexuals would like to be forced to march in my celebrate Catholicism parade.

Sarah,
You seem to be a person honestly searching for the truth, but don’t know where to find it.  As Fr. Corapi so eloquently says, “Truth, in its essence is not something, it is somebody; His name is Jesus Christ.”
You asked which of the 10 Commandments forbids homosexuality?  Let’s take the 6th Commandment – You shall not commit adultery.

“Cf. Mt 19:18; Mk 7:22; Eph 5:3-4; Mt 22:39-40; Rom 13:9. 
Commands: Respect for the marriage bed, use of sexual powers (chastity).
Forbids: Adultery, fornication, sexual acts preparatory to intercourse outside marriage, masturbation, homosexuality, pornography, prostitution, contraception, etc.” (Quoted from EWTN.com)

Sexually active homosexual persons , like all of us, are sinners.  God loves us all.  As Christians we hate the sin, but love the sinner.  All Christians *should* feel the need to reach out to homosexual persons with the message to repent for their sins, and believe in Jesus.
As Christians we want to see our homosexual friends and relatives in heaven someday.  We also know, that unless they repent of their sin, heaven is not their likely destination (no fornicators, adulterers, homosexuals will enter heaven.)
Now, since you asked for a bible reference with your 10 Commandment question, I’m wondering why you won’t answer my Sodom and Gamorrah question, since it is also biblical?

Ops, my husband Marty posted on a different article this morning.  I forgot to switch names in the name box.

Above post was really me, not Marty.

Christians just like to put people down. It must help them feel their life is worthwhile. I am so glad I don’t rely on that superstitious nonsense to get me thru the day.

(And the baby Jeeezuz wept…)

Pete, Christians love the truth and don’t like to see it distorted or leading people and society to misery.  True love is sacrificial and speaks up even when it draws anger.  Sarah, The Bible is the inspired Word of God.  It is not just the writings of men.  It is the writings of men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  They felt drawn to write and inspired to write those words.  The Church and all Christians have recognized that for centuries.  You and your friends were created FOR GOD.  You are not your own.  You were purchased FOR GOD by the blood of Jesus Christ.  This is something awesome and mysterious and serious.  You are asked to carry a cross of true love on this earth that puts God ahead of self and makes the tough choices to walk the narrow path.  If your friends are going to a church and hearing the word of God and are open to all truth, God will lead them to celibacy.  They are on the journey.  As for lawmakers, they are supposed to make laws for the good of society.  We are founded on a Christian heritage and it is the basis of our democracy.  For thousands of years we have understood that sexual activity with people of the same sex is disordered.  It is not what is best for society.

Pam: Tsk! Tsk! If a god wanted to tell his people how to live he would get a new, good Jewish publicist. That bible you tout is so full of anachronisms, errors, untruths, foulness and stupidity that no intelligent mind in our literate age could believe anything it says. Yes, whoever, invented the character of J.C. did a good job of making a congenial fellow with many pithy and wise sayings, but most of his story line (and sayings) can be traced to earlier myths and documents. It’s just a sham.

Pam, the need to express ourself to something greater than ourself is pretty well universal. That doesn’t mean that one has to buy into one of these sad “prepackaged” death cults. Have your faith in god, enjoy its creation, talk to it, express your gratitude to it - but to embrace any of the pathetic worlds religions as they are taught is to show no creativity and rigidity of thought.

Just wondering, Victor, Pete, Sarah, et all…

Did you all come here from a link at the same blog spot?

If so, which one is it?  I’d like to check it out.

Viktor,  If you accept any historical figure you must accept Jesus Christ because there is more evidence of His existence than any other historical figure.  Sorry, It’s not make believe.  Many Christians could witness to you their personal experiences of Christ!  I would suggest you read the lives of some saints.  Padre Pio died in 1968.  He is recent and his life is very well documented.  As he would say to someone who came into his confessional with your attitude, “You may not believe in Him now, but you will when you meet Him at your death!”  I will pray for your openness to conversion.  Sadly, we Christians do a poor job of living our faith so I understand that people are turned off.  Don’t let us keep you from Him.  He is so much more than what you see from us.

Kathy: We are Legion…you have now joined us!

No, Legion, never said I’d join you.  Just wondered where you came from.

It’s easier to talk to someone, once you know what their perspective it.

Kathy: We are Legion. We are from Hell. Join us.

Ah, Legion.  I don’t think that’s were you’re from, but I do fear that’s your final destination if you do not see the light and repent.

Here’s a challenge ~ I double dog dare you to pray a Chaplet of Divine Mercy, and see what happens!

Report back.

Kathy, “Legion” is the name the demons called themselves when Jesus was asked to cure a demonaic.  He asked the spirit in the boy, “Who are you?” and they answered, “We are Legion.”  The they asked to be allowed to enter the herd of swine which Jesus allowed and they drove the swine over the cliff into the sea where they drowned and the demonaic was healed.  This was in a non Jewish town and the people asked Jesus to please leave. While they were happy the man was cured, they were stunned at the loss of the large herd of pigs.  They didn’t know what to make of Him.  To Legion: the Catholic Church still performs exorcisms.  You don’t have to live chained to evil.

Pam,

You are spot on, as usual!

I asked Pete, err, I mean “Legion” to pray the Chaplet because of St. Faustina’s promises.

Whoever will recite it will receive great mercy at the hour of death (687). 
Priests will recommend it to sinners as their last hope of salvation. Even if there were a sinner most hardened, if he were to recite this Chaplet only once, he would receive grace from My infinite mercy (687).

She also said that as she prayed it for another person, she could actually see demons flee.

Don’t waste your breath, my pretties. You’ll be with me soon, as will all Catholics.

“My pretties?”

Sorry, I think you got your stories confused.

Time to change your name from Pete, to Legion, to Wicked Witch of the West!

“I’ll get all you Catholics, and your little dog Todo, too!”

Disney, the brothers Grimm, Hans Christian Anderson, religion, god, satan: It’s all fairy tales after all!

Kyle, if you really believe that why are you logging onto a National Catholic Register blog?  God is real and He loves you and is waiting for you to turn to HIM.

Kyle,

Here’s a little help.

When you go to the library, here’s where to look for the things you mentioned:

FICTION
Disney
Bros. Grimm
Hans Christian Anderson

NON FICTION
Bible (the book that explains religion, God, and satan)

I’m sure your librarian would be happy to help you.

Kathy, dear: Whatever gets you up in the morning! If you want to waste your time worshiping extra-terrestrials, be my guest. Just keep your delusional thinking to yourself. JC is so pre-enlightenment. Have you heard about that, honey?

I hear people are praising Aphrodite and Jupiter these days.! Maybe you should pray to them too. And don’t forget the trees. They like a kind word also. I’ll be enjoying life on life’s terms. And no, there is no hellfire for atheists; only sweet silence from the earthly prattle of the superstitious!

Kyle dear,
My alarm clock gets me up in the morning, but then I thank God for another day of life, because HE is the one that gives it to me.

“Who can assure us that we will be alive tomorrow? Let us listen to the voice of our conscience, to the voice of the royal prophet: “Today, if you hear God’s voice, harden not your heart.” Let us not put off from one moment to another (what we should do) because the (next moment) is not yet ours. “
Padre Pio

@Kathy:  You are speaking the truth, but don’t get drawn into the anger or sarcasm.  That’s a trick of the darkness to discredit all you say. @Kyle: Again I would ask why you come to a Catholic blog if you feel so strongly this way.  Jesus said you could find the existence of God just in nature if no one ever told you about Him.  Abraham did.  Look at this incredible creation.  Even science is forced more and more to admit intelligent design.  If you are on this site I have to believe God is calling you closer.  I will be happy to answer any questions you have.

Stay in your cave and follow everything you’re told to do by the Pope. That’s the way the rich and powerful want you to behave. They’ll have fun breaking all those rules and spending all your money behind closed doors while laughing at the ignorant masses. It has always been thus.

@Pam,

A little *fraternal correction*.

Not everyone says things in the same way. Differences can be a good thing.

Some people may not listen to *your* way of dialoging, but may be more inclined to engage in more *playful sparing,* especially younger people.

You found Kathy’s comments to be angry and sarcastic.

I found them to be humorous, and aimed at a younger audience.

(And…I know her motives pretty well.  She’s my wife.)

Marty: My condolences on having to live with a hard-wired, delusional shrew such as Kathy. I’m sure if you divorced the Pope would grant you an expedient annulment.

Kyle,

I LOVE it!  :-)

I might just keep it as my name for NCR from now on.

To Marty and Kathy,  Face to face one can tell sarcasm, in writing though, not so much. Do people need to place the intent in parentheses? (sarcasm, jk, anger etc.?) We are members of the body of Christ and encouraging this way of relating with the younger crowd doesn’t lead them where they want to go.  The narrow road. To Kyle: Still haven’t answered the question.

What do you have to get in order to be happy? You have a list for sure. But anything you can get, you can un-get. So that leaves you unhappy.

There is nothing that you have to get, do, or be in order to be happy. It is hard-wired in you to be happy. It is your innate nature. Then why does your life suck? You have spent your entire life learning to be unhappy by buying into a particular mental model (this is how the world should work). We aren’t aware that we have mental models, e.g. we need money so then we can travel to exotic places and be happy.

“If – then I will be happy” model. Examine what ifs are you focusing on now? What were you focusing on 10 years ago? Odds are that you have those things now. So why aren’t you happy. The model itself is flawed. We end up changing the “ifs”.

Why does a mountain range make you so happy at certain instants? You accepted the universe exactly as it is at that moment. You’re wanting self drops away, your innate self surfaces and is happy. Your life with its problems right now is equally perfect. But you spend all your time striving for “ifs”. You have to get out of this model.

We want to achieve something; we have outcomes. Actions are largely within our control, but outcomes are outside your control. Sometimes you achieve your goal, other times you get the exact opposite. We define our life: here I am, here’s where I want to go, if I succeed I am good, if I don’t get there, I am a failure.

Don’t invest in the outcome. You invest in the process. When it’s over and you look in the mirror, did you do the best you were capable of? Then you’ve investing in the process, not the outcome. Don’t look at the score of the game, the outcome. It doesn’t define your well-being. Invest in the process. Focus on the outcome only in that it gives you direction. Put yourself into it. If you reach your goal, wonderful. If you don’t reach your goal, wonderful. You adapt or change you outcome. Think of a child learning to walk. She gets up, falls, gets helped up, tries again, doesn’t give up.

Invest in the outcome, give it your best, but the outcome doesn’t define you; the process does. Passion exists inside you. Find a way to ignite it in you right where you are. You’ll then find the external world rearranges itself to accommodate you and greet you. Everything is a journey. Is this a journey I want to take? Do I want to spend time on this journey? Invest in the process, not in the outcome.

@Immaculate Conception.  That’s what the spiritual journey is!  That’s why we are called pilgrims.

This is going to be happening more and more.  Most of the gay parades are lewd and emphasize sex.  If they really were full of “pride” why wear outrageous costumes that show “everything”.  Our City even makes it a “family fun weekend” so people will “understand” the community more.  Thank goodness for those three fire fighters that refused to be in the parade.  No one should be coerced to be in anything immoral.

And yes, companies also problems.  The one I worked for (and retired from) had a Gay club.  Furthermore, if you even said or implied anything about gays, you could be fired.  However, religion bashing was okay.

Also, the trend of having gay clubs in high school worries me, because most of these kids don’t have the maturity to know what is right or wrong, or to get help with it.  I have nothing against gay people, but I don’t “approve” of the lifestyle, and we shouldn’t be forced to “attend a wedding” contribute toward one (businesses)
and if the same sex marriage becomes law in the U.S.  the Church will be the next to bashed because they will not perform gay weddings.

Because of this, they may lost their “tax” status.  And the kids in school will have crammed down their throats the “legitimacy” of this “life-style”.

I believe that some of the posters have “misplaced compassion” toward gay partnerships.  Will the same people “okay” polygamy because otherwise we will be “bigots”?

See http://www.godisimaginary.com I do not endorse the site, but offer it so that you can see what the “competition” is up to.

Maybe we should have a Catholic Parade and make these gay guys to be forced to go to confession and pray that were in this smut parade.

I’ve seen footage of one of these “Pride” parades—they should be called “Smut” Parades—There were even drag queens dressed up like nuns acting preverted. And you know what? Budwiser was actually a sponser!

I am sure not all gay poeple act in these manners, yet they sure give their “Community” a bad name.

I can’t understand why some poeple-especially gay poeple feel they have a right and actually find it appropriate to display to the world what they like to do with others in the bedroom.

My opinion—get a room, close the blinds, shut the door and SHUT YOUR MOUTHS—not everyone wants to know what you do with your bodies.

GROSS…

“Most of the gay parades are lewd and emphasize sex.”

This is not surprising - it’s impossible to be alive today and not be constantly surrounded by a sea of sexual imagery: suggestive clothing, very low-cut some of it; sexualised advertising; advertisements on web-pages; newspapers full of females either semi-clad or in suggestive poses or both; and God knows what else. As for the promiscuity of !@#$% like - well, just about any “star” or “sleb” or public character one cares to mention, and the utter disregard for the sanctity of the marriage bond that is usual in public life, there is really very little homosexuals have to do to make the atmosphere smuttier: it’s poisoned already, by the disgusting antics & filthy carryings-on of generations of heterosexuals.

So those who who are sickened by the tone of life today need to look at the countless adulterers with whom society swarms already; the people who marry for a few weeks or months, then have a costly divorce; the people who marry half a dozen times or more. “Gay Pride” parades are only one part of the problem. Maybe, if heterosexual people bothered to clean up their own horrible behaviour, their good conduct might set an example. But when public figures, including those who know better, hold the marriage-bond cheap, & disgrace it by their conduct, it is hardly surprising that lesser beings follow suit. IOW: Pot, meet Kettle.

Hello Manticore,

Homosexuals who “marry” have all the same problems and ills that heterosexuals do, and more.  Gay males are known for they promiscuous lifestyle- that’s why they STILL have a rising HIV rate in this country.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

The homosexuals who have been able to legally marry are also now asking for divorces….

They are descended too from the fallen Adam and Eve.

Don’t put homosexuals on a pedestal.

Would the firefighters be allowed to cling to a sign that reads…“Repent and Be Saved” or more simply “John 3:16-21”?
Seems to me that more souls would be converted by this simple act.